Patanjali Sastri, J.-These appeals arise out of a suit and a cross suit brought to establish the rival claims of the parties to certain immoveable properties left by one Ramaswami Goundan who died in 1941. The first plaintiff who is a minor represented by the second plaintiff, his mother, acting as his next friend, brought O.S. No. 53 of 1942, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore claiming that a dharmasasanam (or deed of charitable endowment) executed by Ramaswami was a sham and nominal transaction and that he as the undivided son of Ramaswami succeeded to the properties comprised in the deed by survivorship, and, in the alternative, that he was the only person entitled to manage the properties on behalf of the charity in case the deed was upheld as a valid dedication. He accordingly prayed for a declaration to that effect and for sundry other consequential reliefs which it is unnecessary to detail here. The son of Ramaswami by his first wife was called as first defendant to the suit and he filed a written statement as the sole contesting defendant pleading inter alia, that the deed of endowment created a valid trust intended to be operative and was given effect to and acted upon by Ramaswami himself before his death, that the second plaintiff was not the lawfully wedded wife of Ramaswami and the first plaintiff was not born to him and that he (first defendant), though divided from his father, was entitled, as the only legitimate son of Ramaswami, to manage the trust properties on behalf of the trust and perform the services specified in the deed. On practically the same allegations he brought O.S. No. 760 of 1941 in the Court of the District Munsiff, Tirupur, for injunction and other reliefs. This suit was transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, where it was numbered as O.S. No. 180 of 1942, and was tried along with the other suit by consent of parties. It will be convenient to refer to the parties as they are arrayed in O.S. No. 53 of 1942.

The learned Subordinate Judge has found (1) that the second plaintiff was lawfully wedded to Ramaswami Goundan and the first plaintiff was born to him, (2) that the dharmasasanam (Ex. P-3) was executed by Ramaswami as a nominal transaction to screen the properties against the claims of his illegitimate son by his concubine, Kannammal, but was intended to be operative to the extent of charging the properties with an annual expenditure of Rs. 150 for the performance of the services specified therein and (3) that the properties devolved on the first plaintiff as the undivided son of Ramaswami subject to the trust and the second plaintiff was entitled to manage the properties on his behalf. The learned Judge accordingly passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 53 of 1942, and dismissed O.S. No. 180 of 1942, making the first defendant liable for costs in both the suits. From the said decrees the first defendant has preferred these appeals and the plaintiffs have preferred a memorandum of cross-objections claiming that the deed Ex. P-3 was wholly nominal and inoperative.

Mr. Viswanatha Sastri appearing for the appellant did not attack the finding of the Court below regarding the legitimacy of the first plaintiff. But he urged that the finding of the learned Judge that the transaction evidenced by Ex. P-3 was partly nominal and partly operative was opposed to the evidence in the case, besides being self-contradictory and unintelligible. He contended that the deed operated and was intended to operate as a genuine dedication of the entire properties to the trust specified therein and that the deed was acted upon by Ramaswami himself who was performing the services applying the income of the properties thereto. He further submitted that on a true construction of its terms relating to the future conduct of the services the appellant as well as the first plaintiff was entitled as the "santhathi" of Ramaswami to participate in the management of the pr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document