1902 Supreme(Mad) 117
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Narayanasami Gurukkal, Vellasamy Tever and Anr. and Rajah Rajeswara Dorai
Versus
Irulappa Nadan and 13 Ors.
Decided On : 18.09.1902
Beneficiaries interested in trust property have a right to be made parties in suits concerning the property to show cause against compromises that may be injurious to their interests.
Headnote:
Joinder of Parties - Trust Property - Civil Procedure Code, Section 437 - The court allowed three persons to be joined as co-plaintiffs in the suit concerning property vested in a trustee, as they were beneficiaries interested in the trust property and had a right to show cause against the compromise being recorded and a decree being passed in its terms.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, as Zemindar of Ramnad and hereditary trustee of a temple, brought a suit for a declaration that certain individuals were not entitled to enter the temple and for an injunction restraining them from doing so. After a protracted trial, the Subordinate Judge found in favor of the plaintiff. However, a proposed compromise led to the plaintiff giving up all claims and allowing the defendants the same rights as other Sudra servants of the Hindu community in the temple.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed three beneficiaries interested in the trust property to be joined as co-plaintiffs in the suit, as they had a right to show cause against the compromise being recorded and a decree being passed in its terms.
Issues: The issues involved the joinder of parties in the appeal suits, the validity of the proposed compromise, and the interests of the beneficiaries in the trust property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied Civil Procedure Code, Section 437, which provides for the representation of persons beneficially interested in trust property in suits concerning such property. The court held that the beneficiaries had a right to be made parties in order to show cause against the compromise, as it was injurious to their interests.
Final Decision: The court allowed the three beneficiaries to be joined as co-plaintiffs in the suit, with the condition that they would not claim a retrial of the suit but would be bound by the decision in appeal. The appellants were directed to pay the petitioners' costs.
1. In these petitions three persons seek to be joined as respondents in Appeal Suits Nos. 11 and 77 of 1900 pending in this court. Both appeals are identical, but were filed in two courts owing to a doubt as to jurisdiction. The respondent, who was plaintiff in the suit, does not oppose the petitions, but appellants who were defendants in the suit, object on two grounds, via., (1) that there is no ground shown in the petitioners affidavits for joining them, and (2) that they ought not to be joined as respondents in the appeals, but if at all, as plaintiffs in the suit.
2. The plaintiff, as Zemindar of Ramnad, is the hereditary trustee of the Minakshi Sundareswaraswami temple and as such trustee he brought the suit (O.S. No. 33 of 1898) for a declaration that neither the defendants nor other Shanars were entitled to enter the temple and for an injunction restraining them from so doing, and he obtained a decree to that effect after a protracted trial. The Shanars filed the appeals now pending, and the plaintiff and defendants put in a petition (C.M.P. No. 705 of 1901) stating that they had compromised the suit and requesting that the compromise might be recorded, and a decree passed in accordance with it, in supersession of the decree originally passed in the suit. The plaintiff now wishes to withdraw from the compromise, and, we are informed, intends to oppose it.
3. In support of the present petitions affidavits have been put in alleging, inter alia, that the plaintiff has been influenced by corrupt motives and by false representations, to enter into a compromise.
4. With regard to these allegations, we may say at once they are made in such terms as to be quite worthless. The charge of corruption is made in paragraphs 10 and 13 of the affidavit of Narayansamy Gurukkal, in which he says, "I am given to understand, etc.," and "I am credibly informed and believe," etc., but the name of the informant or the source of the information is not given. Such an affidavit is perfectly worthless, and if it were necessary for the petitioners to show corruption on the part of the plaintiff, or that he made the compromise owing to the false representations, we would regard the allegations as not made out by the affidavits and we would dismiss the petitions. Apart, however, from these special allegations, we think that a recital of the admitted facts of the litigation are sufficient to justify us in making the petitioners parties.
5. The disputes between the Shanars and the Anti-Shanars with respect to the claim of the Shanars, to enter the plaint temple and other Hindu temples were of some standing and led to serious riots with much loss of life and property. The plaintiff, as trustee of the temple, filed the suit for a declaration that neither the defendants nor other Shanars were entitled to enter the temple, and asking for an injunction, and for damages to defray the cost of purificatory ceremonies necessitated by the defendants having unlawfully entered the temple and defiled it.
6. Issues wore framed with regard to the alleged rights of the defendants and were enquired into at great length, some 135 witnesses being examined and over 100 documents exhibited, and after a trial which lasted some three months and involved much expense, the Subordinate Judge found that the defendants have not been allowed to use the plaint temple in the past for worship, and that the custom sot up by them in support of the right of entry has not been made out, and that the defendants belong to a class which, under customs and the Shastras, are precluded from entering the plaint temple. He, therefore, gave the plaintiff the declaration and injunction asked for, and a decree for Rs. 500 for purificatory ceremonies. The plaintiff, representing the Anti-Shanars, was thus victorious all along the line. In the present proposed compromise he gives up everything and more than everything for which he has hitherto strenuously and successfully contended on behalf of tho