SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1957 Supreme(Mad) 41

MADRAS HIGH COURT
PANCHAPAKESA AYYAR
Ramaswami Chettiar
Versus
Karumuthu Sivalingam Chettiar
Civil Revn. Petn. No. 1694 of 1956
Decided On : 8February, 1957

Advocates Appeared:
M.S. Venkatarama Iyer, for Petitioner; P.S. Chandrasekhara Iyer and P.S. Ramachandran, for Respondent.

A lessee of trust property, who has taken a substantial lease and is a resident of the locality, is a person interested in the trust within the meaning of Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

Headnote:

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - ORDER 1, RULE 10 - ADDITION OF PARTIES - INTERESTED PERSON - INTERPRETATION - SCOPE - LESSEE OF TRUST PROPERTY - WHETHER INTERESTED PERSON - HELD, YES

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, the first defendant in a suit filed by five persons against him and 30 other defendants, challenged the order of the lower court adding the respondent as a co-plaintiff in the suit. The suit alleged mismanagement and alienations of trust properties by the defendants, and the respondent, a prominent citizen and honorary magistrate, applied to be added as a co-plaintiff, claiming to be interested in the trust and its proper management.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the respondent was a person interested in the trust within the meaning of Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and that the lower court had not erred in adding him as a co-plaintiff. The court noted that the respondent had taken a lease of the trust property for a substantial amount, which showed his interest in the proper management of the chattram. Additionally, the respondent was a resident of the locality and a Hindu entitled to take advantage of the benefits of the chattram.

Issues: Whether the respondent was a person interested in the trust within the meaning of Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the term "interested person" in Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, broadly, considering the changing social and communication landscape. It held that a person who had devoted time and energy for placing the affairs of a chattram on a proper footing, or otherwise for safeguarding the chattram, would be a person interested in the chattram, especially if he lives in the neighbourhood also.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the civil revision petition filed by the petitioner, upholding the lower court's order adding the respondent as a co-plaintiff.

Judgement

ORDER :- This is a petition filed by Ramaswami Chettiar, the first defendant in O. S. No. 3 of 1956 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga, against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge adding the respondent, Karumuthu Sivalingam Chettiar, as a co-plaintiff in that suit. That was a suit filed by five persons against the respondent and 30 other defendants.

It was alleged in the plaint that the ancestors of defendants 1 to 13 endowed considerable properties for the maintenance of an Annadana Chattram in which pilgrims to Rameswaram were allowed to rest, and Brahmins and others, among them, allowed to feed free; that there has been mismanagement, including alienations, regarding the trust properties by defendants 1 to 13, and that defendants 14 to 31 were the alienees in respect of some of the properties.

The original plaintiffs, as persons interested in the trust and residents of the locality, where the Annadana Chattram was situated, had filed the suit after obtaining the consent of the Advocate-General under S. 92, C. P. C. The respondent, Sivalingam Chettiar, applied to be added as a co-plaintiff, under Order 1, Rule 10, C. P. C., alleging that he was a prominent citizen of the locality, and a man interested in the Chattram and its proper management, and an honorary magistrate, and that he could also effectively prosecute the suit unlike the present plaintiffs who were not financially capable enough to do that.

His application was opposed by the first defendant on the ground that he was not motivated by any good idea, for the welfare of the Chattram, in getting himself added, but was motivated only by his own selfish desire to make some profit out of it, and that he was not a beneficiary under this charity, one of the persons who could be said to be interested in the Chattram under the ruling of the Bench of this court in T. R. Ramachandra Aiyar v. Parameswaran Unni, ILR 42 Mad 360 : (AIR 1919 Mad 384) (A).

The learned Subordinate Judge overruled this objection, observing that the impleading of a party in a suit like this need not be on the sole ground that he is a beneficiary under the trust, and that, even though the respondent was urged to be not a beneficiary under this trust, he could be added as he was interested in the trust, as he was a Hindu residing near the trust properties and was an honorary magistrate and an influential person.

2. I have perused the records and heard the learned counsel on both sides. Mr. M.S. Venkatarama Aiyar, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that the mere fact that the respondent was a Hindu and an honorary magistrate, and a rich and influential man of the locality, would not be sufficient for adding him as a party to the suit, and that, under the ruling in ILR 1942 Mad 360 : (AIR 1919 Mad 384) (A), the word "interested" in S. 92, C. P. C., denotes an interest which is substantial and not casual or sentimental, or remote, and that the mere right of a Hindu to worship in a temple would not be such interest, unless it was shown that he was actually exercising the right of worship in the temple, and making offerings therein.

Learned counsel for the respondent urged that the respondent had actually resided in the suit chattram on occasions, and was therefore a beneficiary, and that, even otherwise, he was residing only three miles away, and had saved the trust properties from being sold away by a decree-holder, and had got the attachment released, and was a lessee in respect of the trust tope by being the highest bidder at an auction held by a Commissioner of Court for Rs. 7000/-, and was therefore vitally interested in the trust and its proper management.

He relied on the ruling of a Bench of this Court in Gopalakrishnier v. Ganapati Iyer, 58 Ind Cas 124 : (AIR 1920 Mad 238) (B), where Sadasiva Aiyar and Spencer, JJ., have held that a person who has devoted time and energy for placing the affairs of a Chattram on a proper footing, or otherwise for safeguarding the chat











Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top