Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 10
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. RAJASURIA
S.A. Rasheed & Others
Versus
R.K. Kamalakaran & Others
A.S.Nos.727 of 1999, 699 of 1999 and 31 of 2000
Decided On :Decided On : 02-01-2008
For the Appellants :N.C. Ashok Kumar, T.V. Sivakumar, Advocates. For the Respondents:R1, C. Godwin, R13 to R16, M.S. Suresh Kumar, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff had no standing to file the suit, the trust had become defunct and dormant, and the suit was barred by limitation.
Headnote:
Trust - Private Religious Trust - Indian Trust Act 1882, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959 - The court discussed the creation of a private religious trust under the Indian Trust Act and the applicability of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. It highlighted the intention of the trust creator, the nature of the trust, and the limitations on the trustee's actions. The court also examined the issue of limitation and the legal principles governing the extinguishment of a trust. The judgment and decree of the trial Court were set aside, and the original suit was dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, as the son of the first defendant, filed a suit seeking to declare the suit properties as trust properties and to remove the first defendant from the trusteeship. The defendants contested the suit, denying the plaintiff's capacity as a trustee and challenging the maintainability of the suit due to non-joinder of necessary parties. The trial Court decreed the suit, but the defendants filed appeals against the judgment and decree.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff had no locus standi to file the suit, the trust had become defunct and dormant, and the suit was barred by limitation. It held that the plaintiff's suit was misconceived and improperly framed. The appeals were allowed, and the original suit was dismissed.
Issues: The issues included the creation and nature of the trust, the plaintiff's capacity to file the suit, the validity of the alienations of the suit properties, the applicability of the Indian Trust Act and the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, the bar of limitation, and the proper valuation of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that the plaintiff had no standing to file the suit, the trust had become defunct, and the suit was barred by limitation. It also considered the improper framing of the suit and the need for additional court fees. The court's decision was influenced by the legal provisions of the Indian Trust Act, the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, and the Limitation Act.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court, and the original suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed.
A.S.Nos.727 of 1999, 699 of 1999 and 31 of 2000 have been filed by (i) the defendant No.13, (ii) the defendant No.11 and (iii) the defendant Nos.4 to 9 and 12 respectively, as against the judgment and decree dated 08.03.1999 in O.S.No.610 of 1987 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai.
2. The parties, for convenience sake, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the trial Court.
3. The gist and kernel, the pith and marrow of the case of the plaintiff as stood exposited from the plaint could be portrayed thus:
(i) The plaintiff is the son of the first defendant and grandson of the deceased N.Hari Govinda Iyer. The suit property described in the schedule of the plaint originally belonged to the said Hari Govinda Iyer who executed the trust deed, Ex.A.1 on 09.03.1931, dedicating the first item of the suit property as Choultry so as to enable his own caste people to stay there for three to five days during the festival days relating to Arudhra Dharisanam concerning Lord Nataraja of Chidambaram temple. The income from item Nos.2, 3 and 4 of the suit properties were expected to be used for providing food to such pilgrims staying in the first item of the suit property during Arudhra festival in Chidambaram temple during the month of Margazhi every year and as per the trust deed, the suit properties should not be alienated and the remaining income should be used for purchasing new properties so as to annex those properties also with the suit properties for carrying out such charity.
(ii) Hari Govinda Iyer during his life time, carried out the purpose of trust and after his death, his adopted son the first defendant acted as the Managing Trustee. However, the first defendant sold away the trust properties quite antithetical to the terms and conditions of the trust deed. The plaintiff, became the trustee after attaining majority and he came to know about such alienations made by the first defendant. The defendants 2 to 10 are the purchasers of the suit properties after knowing that those are trust properties which should not have been the subject matter of sale or purchase. At present, there are no properties to perform charity as contemplated under the trust deed. Hence, the charity got stopped. The plaintiff therefore filed the suit in his capacity as the trustee seeking the following reliefs:
(a) to declare that the suit properties belongs to the trust as per trust deed dated 09.03.1931 executed by Sri.Hari Govinda Iyer as per the order in I.A.No.592 of 1991 dated 07.11.1991 removing the first defendant from the office of the trusteeship and consequence thereof and consequently direct the defendants 2 to 10 to handover the possession of the suit properties without any let or hindrance to the plaintiff;
(b) to direct the defendants to pay the costs of the suit to the plaintiff."
(emphasis supplied.)
4. The third defendant filed the written statement with the averments denying and disputing, challenging and gainsaying the averments/allegations in the plaint thus:
The plaintiff is not a trustee at all and for that matter, he cannot assume himself as trustee when his father, the first defendant who is the Managing Trustee is alive. The other legal heirs of the original trustee as per the trust deed, Ex.A.1, were not added in the suit and as such, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The plaintiff is having no locus standi to file the suit and claim possession. The third defendant purchased the suit item Nos.3 as per Ex.B.2, the sale deed dated 03.02.1944, from the first defendant and the mother of the first defendant, Seethammal, the then Managing Trustees of the Trust. From out of the sale consideration of the item Nos.3 and 4, a pacca terraced property was purchased by them. Accordingly, the third defendant prayed for the dismissal of the suit.
5. The defendants 4 to 6 filed the written statement almost reiterating contentions of the third defendant relating to n
