Ganapatia Pillai, J.-

The decision of this appeal turns upon the true interpretation of a settlement deed, Exhibit A-1, executed by one Nallamuthu Ambalam. The first respondent to this appeal brought the suit, as plaintiff, in his capacity as managing trustee of the Poolampatti Nallamuthu Ambalam Samadhi Nandavanam Trust for recovery of possession of the plaint mentioned properties with mesne profits.

The first defendant to the suit, who is the first appellant before us, along with defendants 4, 5 and 6 who are also co-appellants, it was alleged, trespassed upon items 11 to 19 of the plaint schedule some time in 1951 and upon item 1 some time in August, 1953. Defendants 2 and 3 were appointed trustees along with the first respondent by the settlement deed of Nallamuthu Ambalam executed on 3rd March, 1950. The deed was registered on 10th March, 1950. Nallamuthu Ambalam died on 24th March, 1950. Nallamuthu Ambalam had no near relations or issue except his wife Ayyammal. By the settlement deed he gave a life estate to his wife Ayyammal over items 1 to 4 and the whole of items 5 to 19 for the following objects: (1) The construction of a Samadhi with Nandavanam for himself after his death, (2) for maintenance of the Samadhi by lighting it every day, offering camphor and incense on every Tuesday and Friday, and offering neivedyam at the Samadhi on seven days in the year, and (3) to provide funds for the food and education of poor pupils. The first respondent was appointed managing trustee for his life and provision was made in the trust deed for succession to the office of both managing trustee and trustees according to the hereditary principle. One item of property described in Schedule ‘B ‘to the settlement deed was given to the first appellant on condition that he should perform the funeral ceremonies of Nallamuthu Ambalam and his wife. Two other relations of Nallamuthu Ambalam were indicated as the donees of this gift in case the first appellant refused to perform the funeral ceremonies.

According to the tenor of the settlement deed , the managing trustee was given immediate possession of a portion of the dwelling house of Nallamuthu Ambalam, item No. 1, and the properties dedicated to the trust described in Schedule ‘C ‘to the settlement deed. By the time the plaint in this case was filed the widow of Nallamuthu Ambalam had died and it was alleged that the managing trustee had taken possession of the four items of properties given to the widow under Schedule ‘A ‘ to the settlement deed. Soon after the alleged trespass by the first appellant the matter was reported to the police and section 145 proceedings were started before the Additional First Class Magistrate, Madurai, in which an order was passed restoring possession to the managing trustee. It was alleged in the plaint that even after this Order there was trespass committed by the first appellant and hence the suit.

The first appellant (first defendant) was the main contesting defendant. His plea was that Ayyammal was not the legally wedded wife of Nallamuthu Ambalam, that he was the next reversioner to the estate of Nallamuthu Ambalam, and, that he took possession of the entire properties of Nallamuthu Ambalam on his death. He denied that Exhibit A-1 was executed by Nallamuthu Ambalam as a free agent and contended that it was brought about by fraudulent means. He also contended that in so far as Exhibit A-1 purported to create a trust for certain purposes it was a void document and that the suit was barred by limitation.

The learned Judge in the Court below found that Exhibit A-1 was validly executed by Nallamuthu Ambalam out of his free will and that it created a trust for two objects: (1) the establishment of a Samadhi and Nandavanam and (2) the charity for education of poor boys. In regard to the attack upon the validity of the trust deed, the learned Judge found that the trust for the creation of a Samadhi and for its maintenance was invalid, and, applying the doctrine of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document