1972 Supreme(Mad) 367
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.M. Ismail and K.S. Palaniswamy, JJ.
Kuppu Ramalingam Chettiar
Versus
Ranganatham Chettiar
Appeal No. 440 of 1965.
Decided On : 17 July 1972
S. Padmanabhan, for Appellant.
M. Sundaram Iyer, for Respondent.
Adverse possession cannot operate against another.
Headnote:Trust-Claim to office of trusteeship.
2. The suit was resisted mainly by the first defendant, who contended that under the terms of the trust deed, the trusteeship devolved on Subbarayalu Chettiar on the death of Narasimhan Chettiar and on the death of Subbarayalu Chettiar, the trusteeship devolved on Nagamayya Chetti and on the death of Nagamayya Chetti, the office devolved on the first defendant, the only son of Nagamayya Chetti. It was also contended that in any event Nagamayya Chetti had perfected title to the office of trusteeship by adverse possession for over the statutory period, that such title acquired by Nagamayya Chetti had devolved on the first defendant and that, as such, the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. There was also a controversy as regards item 6 of the plaint schedule which had been purchased in the name of Subbarayalu Chettiar. The contention raised by the defendants was that it did not belong to the trust. But the lower Court has found that this item also belonged to the trust, though it was purchased in the name of Subbarayalu Chettiar. That part of the finding was not challenged before as on behalf of the defendants. The trial Court found that under the terms of the trust deed, the trusteeship is to devolve upon the eldest male member in the family of the original founder, that the said anode of devolution was invalid by reason of creation of estates unknown to Hindu Law as laid down by the Privy Council in the well known Tagore’s case, that in any event Nagamayya Chetti had perfected title to the office of trusteeship by adverse possession for over 12 years and that consequently the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief as against the first defendant, son of Nagamayya Chetti. In this view the trial Judge dismissed the suit. Hence this appeal.
3.Mr. Sundaram Ayyar, appearing for the contesting defendants conceded before us that he cannot support the conclusion of the lower Court based upon the principle enunciated in Tagore’s case, for, the office of trusteeship in the instant case does not carry any personal interest of a beneficia