Back
Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. SELVAM
K. Srinivasan & Another
Versus
G. Kuppusamy Naidu Memorial Sport Trust, K. Selvaraj & Others
C.R.P. (MD) No. 2422 of 2008 & M.P. No. 3 of 2008 and C.R.P. (MD) No. 134 of 2009 & M.P. No. 1 of 2009
Decided on: 14-09-2009
Trust - Property Sale - Indian Trust Act, 1882, Section 34, Section 39 - The court discussed the applicability of the Indian Trust Act, 1882, and determined whether the trust in question was a Public Trust or a Private Trust. The court found that the trust was a Public Trust and concluded that the petition filed under Sections 34 and 39 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882 was not legally valid. The impugned order was set aside, and the petition was dismissed without costs, with the petitioner being at liberty to invoke the provision of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a trust, sought permission to sell a property due to financial difficulties. The court analyzed whether the trust was a Public Trust or a Private Trust and the applicability of the Indian Trust Act, 1882.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trust was a Public Trust and the petition filed under Sections 34 and 39 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882 was not legally valid. The impugned order was set aside, and the petition was dismissed without costs, with the petitioner being at liberty to invoke the provision of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Issues: The main issue was whether the trust was a Public Trust or a Private Trust and whether the petition filed under Sections 34 and 39 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882 was legally valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the determination that the trust was a Public Trust and the petition filed under Sections 34 and 39 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882 was not legally valid.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the petition was dismissed without costs, with the petitioner being at liberty to invoke the provision of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
1. The order passed in Trust Original Petition No. 88 of 2005 by the Principal District Court, Tuticorin is being challenged in Civil Revision Petition No. 2422 of 2008.
2. Civil Revision Petition No. 134 of 2009 has been filed praying to direct the Principal District Court, Tuticorin to dispose of I.A. No. 247 of 2008 in accordance with law.
3. The First Respondent in Civil Revision Petition No. 2422 of 2008 as Petitioner has filed Trust Original Petition No. 88 of 2005 on the file of the Court below, praying to permit the Petitioner to sell the schedule mentioned property for the best price prevailing in the market.
4. It is averred in the Petition that the property mentioned in the schedule belongs to the trust of the Petitioner. The trust of the Petitioner has been registered under Trust Act on 12.8.1960. Initially five trustees have been nominated and in which two trustees are family trustees. The main object of the trust is to encourage sports activities of all kinds. The trust of the Petitioner has conducted Sri G. Kuppusamy Naidu Memorial All India Hockey Tournament at Kovilpatti from the year 1960. For the past 4 years due to financial stringencies, tournaments have not been conducted. The property mentioned in the schedule is the absolute property of the trust of the Petitioner. The trust of the Petitioner has not been able to remit even electricity charges and also to give salaries to its employees. The property mentioned in the schedule is situate near habitations and attempts have been made to encroach the same. The right of selling the property mentioned in the schedule has been given under Clause 23(i) of the Trust Deed dated 12.8.1960. The members of the Petitioner are also running a similar trust at Coimbatore and same has also been registered under Trust Act on 4.7.1976. The purpose of the said trust is also similar to that of the Petitioner. Only for the purpose of safeguarding the interest of the trust property, the present Petition has been filed, praying to allow the Petitioner to sell the Petition mentioned property.
5. The Court below, after considering all the contentions raised on the side of the Petitioner, has allowed the Petitioner to sell the property mentioned in the schedule for Rs. 2,900/- per square meter. Against the order passed by the Court below, the Petitioner/third party has filed Civil Revision Petition No. 2422 of 2008.
6. After the disposal of Trust Original Petition No. 88 of 2005, the Petitioner found in Civil Revision Petition No. 134 of 2009 has filed I.A. No. 247 of 2008 praying to reopen Trust Original petition No.88 of 2005.
7. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both the Civil Revision Petitions, common order is pronounced.
8. Before considering the divergent submissions made on either side, it would be more useful to perorate the following admitted facts and also circumstances under which Trust Original Petition No. 88 of 200 5has been filed.
It is an admitted fact that trust of the Petitioner has been established in the year 1960 and the same has be registered under Trust Act on 12.8.1960. The property mentioned in the schedule is the absolute property of the trust of the Petitioner. The trust of the Petitioner has been established only for the purpose of promoting Sports activities. The main averments made in the Petition is that the Petitioner has conducted tournaments and for the past 4 years due to financial slump, the Petitioner has not been able to conduct tournaments and virtually the trust of the Petitioner has become defunct and similar trust for similar purpose is in existence in Coimbatore and the petition mentioned property is situate near habitations and attempts have been made to encroach the same and in order to safeguard the interest of the trust, the present Petition has been filed so as to permit the Petitioner to sell the petition mentioned property.
9. The learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner/third party in C
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
