Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Krishnaswami Ayyangar, J.
K. Manathunainatha Desikar
Versus
Gopala Chettiar and Ors.
Decided On : 09.12.1942
trusteeship - succession to the office of manager of a temple - Jatindra Mohan Tagore v. Ganendra Mohan Tagore (1972) 9 Beng. L.R. 377, Gnanasambanda Pandarasannadhi v. Velu Pandaram (1900) 23 Mad. 271 - The court discussed the applicability of the principles in Jatindra Mohan Tagore v. Ganendra Mohan Tagore (1972) 9 Beng. L.R. 377 to the scheme of management laid down by Vaithilinga, by which the office of trusteeship was conferred on his descendants both in the male and the female lines. The court concluded that the scheme of succession vesting the management in his descendants both in the male and the female line has not been shown to be illegal or invalid.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a suit for an injunction against the respondents restraining them from interfering with his possession of the suit properties jointly along with the respondents. The properties belong to a Siva temple founded by Vaithilinga in Jaffna in Ceylon. The appellant claimed to be entitled to joint possession of the lands in suit as a trustee of the temple along with defendants 1, 4 and 5. The main question raised was whether the appellant is entitled to claim the office of trusteeship under the scheme laid down by the founder in a document dated 20th April 1805.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the scheme of succession vesting the management in his descendants both in the male and the female line has not been shown to be illegal or invalid. The court also found that the appellant failed to make out a title by adverse possession. The court concluded that the appellant is entitled to joint possession of the office of trusteeship and of the trust properties described in the suit and the defendants shall be restrained by a permanent injunction from interfering with the plaintiffs enjoyment of the office of joint trusteeship along with the respondents.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant is entitled to claim the office of trusteeship under the scheme laid down by the founder in a document dated 20th April 1805. Another issue raised was whether the appellant had acquired a hereditary right of co-trustee-ship along with the contesting defendants by adverse possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the scheme of succession vesting the management in his descendants both in the male and the female line has not been shown to be illegal or invalid. The court also found that the appellant failed to make out a title by adverse possession. The court concluded that the appellant is entitled to joint possession of the office of trusteeship and of the trust properties described in the suit and the defendants shall be restrained by a permanent injunction from interfering with the plaintiffs enjoyment of the office of joint trusteeship along with the respondents.
Final Decision: The court decreed in favour of the plaintiff for the joint possession of the office of trusteeship and of the trust properties described in the suit and the defendants shall be restrained by a permanent injunction from interfering with the plaintiffs enjoyment of the office of joint trusteeship along with the respondents. The appellant is entitled to his costs here and in the Court below from the respondents.
Krishnaswami Ayyangar, J.
1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the appellant Manathunainatha Desikar for an injunction against the respondents restraining them from interfering with his possession of the suit properties jointly along with the respondents. He also prayed that he might be put in joint possession of the suit properties; if that course was found necessary. The properties in respect of which these reliefs were asked admittedly belong to a Siva temple situate in Jaffna in Ceylon founded by Vaithilinga, an ancestor of the parties in or about the year 1790. It would seem that this temple dedicated to Sri Viswalinga Vaitheeswaraswami owns extensive properties in Jaffna besides the properties in suit which are situate in the village of Meppalam in Mannargudi Taluk, Tanjore District. Before the year 1900 these lands were the property of one Thangathachi who held apparently a widows estate. But in that year there was an agreement entered into between her on the one hand and Subbayya, the then trustee of the temple, on the other, by which it was arranged that the Meppalam lands should be made over to the temple in exchange for the temple lands in another village known as Raghunathapuram. This agreement is Ex. 14 dated 22nd April 1900 and was immediately given effect to, though a formal deed of exchange (Ex. g) was only executed on 16th October 1909. It may be mentioned that the lands in Raghunathapuram were gifted to the temple either by Gopala Chetti, a son of the founder Vaithilinga Chetti or by him and his wife some time before 1840. The deeds of gift are not available, but nothing turns upon their absence so far as the present case is concerned inasmuch as it is conceded the temple has an indisputable title to the Meppalam lands now in suit.
2. The appellant claimed to be entitled to joint possession of the lands in suit as a trustee of the temple along with defendants 1, 4 and 5. All of them are descendants of the original founder Vaithilinga, but while these defendants are in the direct male lineage, the plaintiff-appellant is the grandson of Mana-thunainatha who though born in the family of Vaithilinga had been adopted away into a different family. The adoptive mother however was a daughter born in the family. The geneological table annexed to this judgment shows the members of this family and their descent from the common ancestor Vaithilinga, who it was that originally founded the temple and endowed it with most of its properties. The appellant is No. 17 in this table and his grandfather Manathunainatha, No. 14, was adopted to Kandaswami Thevar, the husband of Kanakaratnam, No. 13. The appellant is accordingly the great grandson of Kanakaratnam who was a daughter of one of the founders grandsons, namely, Subbayya.
(1) VAITHILINGA CHETTIAR (d. 1828) | ------------------------------------------------------- | | (2) Gopala Chettiar (d. 1840) (3) Kandappa (d. 1835) | | ------------------------------------------------ | | | | | | (4) Vaithilinga (5) Selvanayagam (6) Subbayya (7) Annapoorni | (d. 1851 issueless) (d. 1859) (d. 1872) | | | | (8) Dorayya (d. 1894) | | | | | (9) Thailammai | | | | ---------------------------------------------- | | | | | | (10) Somasundara (11) Vaithinatha (12) Ponnuthurai (13) Kanagaratnam=Kandasami | = Rajamani (d. issueless) | (Adopted Mana- Thevar | | | thunainatha) | | Valambal | ------------------------------ | | | | (14) Manathunai (15) Subbayya | natha (d. 1909) (d. 1902) | adopted to | | Kanagaratnam | | | | | (16) Kandasami | | Desikar | | (d. 1925) -------------------------------------- | | | | | | | (18) Somasundara (19) Gopala (deft. 1) (20) Ramamritha | | (deft. 2s deceased died (deft. 3s | (17) Manaithunai- husband deceased husband) | natha (plaintiff) d. Oct. 1936) | ----------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | (21) Muthu (22) Subbayya (23) Viswanatha (24) Ponnusami (25) Muthukaya- Chidambara (d. issueless) (d. issueless) | rog
AI
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
