Back
2011 (3) CTC 58, 2011 (2) LW 961, 2011 (3) MLJ 781
High Court of Judicature at Madras
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
O.A.No.1201 of 2009 in C.S.No.1036 of 2009 & O.A.No.1202 of 2009 in C.S.No.1037 of 2009 & O.A.No.421 of 2009 & A.Nos.1930 & 1931 of 2009 in C.S.No.98 of 1957
Sanjay Gupta & Another
Versus
The Corporation of Chennai, Represented by its Commissioner, Chennai & Others
Decided On: 01-04-2011
The Victoria Public Hall, a public trust, was created in 1882 to erect a Town Hall in Chennai. The land for the Town Hall was leased to the Trust by the Corporation of Chennai for a period of 99 years. The Trust failed to fulfill the purposes for which it was created and the Town Hall was not put to public use after 1963. In 1973, the Trust granted a sub-lease of a portion of the land to N.D. Gupta for a period of 55 years. The sub-lease was challenged by the Corporation and the matter went to court. In 2009, the Trust and the Corporation entered into a compromise agreement, whereby the Trust surrendered the leasehold land to the Corporation and the Corporation agreed to pay a sum of money to the Trust. The sub-lessees filed a suit challenging the compromise agreement and seeking an injunction to restrain the Corporation from interfering with their possession of the land. The court held that the compromise agreement was valid and that the sub-lessees were not entitled to an injunction.
Fact of the Case:
The Victoria Public Hall, a public trust, was created in 1882 to erect a Town Hall in Chennai. The land for the Town Hall was leased to the Trust by the Corporation of Chennai for a period of 99 years. The Trust failed to fulfill the purposes for which it was created and the Town Hall was not put to public use after 1963. In 1973, the Trust granted a sub-lease of a portion of the land to N.D. Gupta for a period of 55 years. The sub-lease was challenged by the Corporation and the matter went to court. In 2009, the Trust and the Corporation entered into a compromise agreement, whereby the Trust surrendered the leasehold land to the Corporation and the Corporation agreed to pay a sum of money to the Trust. The sub-lessees filed a suit challenging the compromise agreement and seeking an injunction to restrain the Corporation from interfering with their possession of the land.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the compromise agreement was valid and that the sub-lessees were not entitled to an injunction.
Issues: 1. Whether the compromise agreement between the Trust and the Corporation was valid. 2. Whether the sub-lessees were entitled to an injunction to restrain the Corporation from interfering with their possession of the land.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the compromise agreement was valid because: - The Trust had failed to fulfill the purposes for which it was created and the Town Hall was not put to public use after 1963. - The sub-lease granted to N.D. Gupta was for a period of 55 years, which was excessive and not in the best interests of the Trust. - The compromise agreement was approved by the court and was in the best interests of the Trust. 2. The court held that the sub-lessees were not entitled to an injunction because: - They had no legal right to occupy the land beyond the expiry of the original lease. - The compromise agreement was valid and binding on them. - They had not suffered any irreparable injury.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the sub-lessees' suit and held that the compromise agreement between the Trust and the Corporation was valid and that the sub-lessees were not entitled to an injunction.
1. One of the reminiscences of the colonial past, still standing as an archaeological monument in the heart of Chennai, is the Victoria Public Hall, off Poonamallee High Road near Central Railway Station. History shows that in a public meeting of the inhabitants of Madras, convened by the Sheriff of Madras, at Pachayappa's Hall, it was resolved on 17.3.1882 to erect a town hall for the use and benefit of the public. For the said purpose, the public were invited to subscribe to a fund already opened with M/s.Arbuthnot & Co. (which itself later plunged into litigation). Several citizens of Madras contributed various amounts and an influential Committee of the citizens of Madras was constituted to carry out the project of construction of a Town Hall. The Committee held negotiations with the then Municipal Commissioners for the Town of Madras, as a result of which, the Corporation passed resolutions dated 21.2.1883, 3.9.1884 and 24.9.1885, allotting land of an extent of about 57 grounds on a 99 year lease, on a rent of 8 annas per ground per annum. The allotment was in favour of the Committee. The lease was renewable on the expiry of the original period.
2. On 18.2.1888, a Deed of Trust was drawn up, to which the principal subscribers to the building fund of the Town Hall, were the parties of the first part and the Committee of persons constituted to carry out the project of construction of Town Hall were the parties of the second part. The original body of 12 Trustees constituted to handle the subscriptions, were included as parties of the third part. It was resolved under the said Deed of Trust that (i) the site leased out by the Municipal Commissioners (ii) the building as and when completed and (iii) the amounts collected, would all vest in the Board of Trustees. It was also provided in the Deed of Trust that the Town Hall constructed on the site, would be named as "Victoria Public Hall".
3. In 1889, the Rajah of Vizianagaram advanced a huge sum of money on a mortgage over the Victoria Public Hall on condition that if he was vested with nominating powers, he would forego the entire mortgage debt due to him. Therefore, the then Advocate General of Madras moved a suit in C.S.No.223 of 1905 on the file of this Court, seeking leave to amend the Deed of Trust, so as to provide for the appointment of a 13th Trustee by the Rajah Sahib of Vizianagaram and his successors. By a judgment and decree dated 9.1.1906, this Court was pleased to modify the Deed of Trust by framing a scheme and making a provision regarding the nomination of a 13th Trustee by the Rajah of Vizianagaram.
4. The scheme decree framed in C.S.No.223 of 1905 was modified by another judgment and decree dated 13.12.1921, passed in C.S. No.263 of 1921, at the instance of the then Advocate General. By the said decree, the number of Trustees was prescribed as 12 and they were to be residents of the locality. The decree also stipulated that two of the Trustees shall always be drawn from the European Community, two from Eurasian (Anglo Indian) Community, two from Hindu Community and two from the Mohammedan Community.
5. After about 32 years of the framing of the scheme by this Court in C.S.No.263 of 1921, an application was moved by the Trustees in A. No.918 of 1953 on the file of this Court, seeking permission of this Court to hand over the Hall to the Corporation of Madras. In the said application, the then Advocate General of Madras as well as some concerned citizens of the City intervened, raising objections to the very maintainability of such an application. By an order dated 24.4.1953, this Court dismissed the said application as not maintainable and referred the Trustees to seek redressal in appropriate proceedings under Section 92 CPC.
6. However, 4 persons by name K.Ranga Prasad (a pensioner), V.Srinivasan (an Advocate), T.S.Kumaraswami Mudaliar (a merchant) and Syed Hussain, joined together and instituted a suit in C.S.No.98 of 1957, after obtaining the con
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
