Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SRINIVASAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.R. LAKSHMANAN
S. Panchanathan
Versus
Ellappan (died) & Others
O.S.A. Nos. 153 & 236 of 1990 & Appeal No. (Indigent) 20 of 1990
Decided On :Decided on : 22-09-1995
TRUST - REVOCATION - WILL - LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION - REVOCATION - LOCUS STANDI - RES JUDICATA - PUBLIC TRUST - TRUSTS ACT - APPLICABILITY - DEED OF TRUST - CONSTRUCTION - VESTING OF TITLE.
Fact of the Case:
Rajambal, the owner of a property, executed a deed of trust in 1958, dedicating the property to a trust and constituting herself as the Founder-Trustee for her lifetime. After her death, the property was to be managed by three trustees, and after their lifetime, by the South India Vaniga Vaisya Sangam. Rajambal executed another document in 1963, giving a portion of the property to her husband's brother's son, Ellappa Chettiar, for his lifetime and then to his heirs. However, she cancelled this document in 1965, restoring the terms of the original trust deed. Rajambal died in 1968, and the property was managed by the three trustees mentioned in the trust deed. Due to mismanagement, a suit was filed in 1972, resulting in the removal of the trustees and the appointment of the Sangam as the administrator of the trust estate. The appellant, Panchanathem Chettiar, who was married to Kokila, the daughter of Jayammal, Rajambal's sister-in-law, claimed ownership of the property based on a Will allegedly executed by Rajambal on 4.1.1968. He filed a suit in 1984, seeking a declaration of his title and possession of the property. The Sangam contested the suit, arguing that the trust deed was valid and acted upon, and that the decree obtained by the Sangam in an earlier suit barred the present proceedings on the principle of res judicata. The appellant also filed an application for Letters of Administration with the Will annexed, which was granted by the court in 1980. However, an application for revocation of the Letters of Administration was filed by Ellappa Chettiar, and the grant was revoked in 1989.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appellant had no locus standi to file an application for revocation of the Letters of Administration, as he was not a legal heir of Rajambal. The court also held that the grant of Letters of Administration was liable to be revoked due to the suppression of material facts by the appellant. The court further held that the suit filed by the appellant was barred by the principle of res judicata, as the decree obtained by the Sangam in an earlier suit was valid and binding on the appellant. The court also held that the trust deed was valid and acted upon, and that the property had vested in the Sangam in accordance with the trust deed. The court rejected the appellant's contention that the deed of trust should be treated as a Will, as the recitals of the document clearly showed that it was intended to come into force immediately after its execution.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant had locus standi to file an application for revocation of the Letters of Administration. 2. Whether the grant of Letters of Administration was liable to be revoked due to the suppression of material facts by the appellant. 3. Whether the suit filed by the appellant was barred by the principle of res judicata. 4. Whether the trust deed was valid and acted upon. 5. Whether the property had vested in the Sangam in accordance with the trust deed. 6. Whether the deed of trust should be treated as a Will.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A person who has a caveatable interest in the property in the event of intestacy has locus standi to file an application for revocation of the Letters of Administration. 2. The grant of Letters of Administration is liable to be revoked if there is suppression of material facts by the applicant. 3. A suit is barred by the principle of res judicata if there is a valid and binding decree in an earlier suit between the same parties or their privies, relating to the same subject matter and cause of action. 4. A trust deed is valid and acted upon if it is executed with the intention to create a trust and the trust is actually administered in accordance with the terms of the deed. 5. The property vests in the trustee or the beneficiary in accordance with the terms of the trust deed. 6. A deed of trust cannot be treated as a Will if it is intended to come into force immediately after its execution and the title to the property vests in the trustee or the beneficiary immediately.
Final Decision: The appeals filed by the appellant were dismissed. The judgment and decree passed by the City Civil Court, Madras, dismissing the suit of the appellant were upheld.
SRINIVASAN, J.
1. With the consent of the parties, these appeals are taken up together. The facts are as follows:—
2. The property situate at old No. 7, New No. 12, Muthu Gramani Street, Periamet, Madras-3, belonged originally to one Jeevarathinam Chettiar. Jeevarathinam Chettiar had a wife by name Rajambal and a brother by name Ponnusamy Chettiar. Jeevarathinam Chettiar died on 15.6.1958. Date of death of Ponnusamy Chettiar is not known. Rajambal was the only heir of Jeevarathinam Chettiar. She was in enjoyment of the property. Ponnusamy Chettiar had two wives, Thayalnayagi and Jayammal. Thayalnayagis son was one Ellappa Chettiar and Jayammals daughter was one Kokila. They had no other issues. Kokila married one Panchanathan Chettiar, who is the appellant in all these appeals. Ellappa Chettiar is the 1st respondent in the two O.S. Appeals. He died during the pendency of the appeals and his legal representatives have been brought on record as respondents 3 to 6.
3. Rajambal executed a deed of trust on 10.9.1958, which is marked as Ex: A.7 in O.S. No. 9230 of 1984. Under that document, she dedicated the property to a trust and constituted herself as Founder-Trustee for her life time. The document provided that after her lifetime, the trust shall be managed by three persons, by name K. Palanisami Chettiar, M. Ramasami Chettiar and P. Ellappa Chettiar, the last of them being the brothers son of her husband, already referred to. The document further provided that after the lifetime of the three trustees mentioned therein, the property shall be taken over by South India Vaniga Vaisya Sangam and be managed in accordance with the deed of trust. The document also refers to an intention on the part of the executants husband during his lifetime to dedicate the property to the said Trust. As per the terms of the document, the income accruing from the property is to be utilised for awarding scholarship to poor students of Vaniga Vaisya community studying in educational institutions. The Founder intended herself to reside in a portion of the property during her lifetime and utilise the rental income from the other portions of the property for her maintenance as well as the trust purposes. As per the document, after her demise, the trustees shall carry out the terms of the trust by collecting rents from the property and spending the same for the purposes for which the trust was created.
4. She executed another document called a supplemental deed on 7.9.1963. According to that document, one portion of the property was to be taken by Ellappa Chettiar, her husbands brothers son, who should perform the funeral rites to herself and all the monthly and annual ceremonies connected therewith. That portion of the property was described in the B schedule to the said document. According to him, it was to be taken by him for his lifetime and after his lifetime, by his heirs from generation to generation.
5. A third document was executed by Rajambal on 22.11.1965, cancelling the earlier supplemental deed dated 7.9.1963. In that document, she had mentioned that she executed the supplemental deed, on account of the persuasive words of Ellappa Chettiar, who promised that he would attend to her wants and render all necessary services in her old age. She has further said in that document that under the mistaken belief that she had a right and power to execute a supplemental deed to the trust deed, she had altered the terms of the original trust deed dated 10.9.1958 and she cancelled the said supplemental deed and also declared that the said document was void in law and had no legal effect. Thus, the terms of the original trust deed were restored in tact by Rajambal Ammal.
6. She died on 30.4.1968. After her death, the property was in the management of the three persons mentioned in the trust deed dated 10.9.1958. They were collecting the rents and managing the property. There was some mismanagement on their part after some years, which led to a suit
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
