Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATASWAMI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. NATARAJAN
N. Sripadmanabha Nadar
Versus
P. Ramalinga Nadar & Others
L.P.A. 161 of 1986
Decided On :Decided on : 15-02-1991
TRUST - PRIVATE FAMILY TRUST - REMOVAL OF TRUSTEE - RENDITION OF ACCOUNTS - FRAMING OF SCHEME - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT - NON-JOINDER OF PARTIES - IMPLEADING OF DEITY - HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1951 - SECTIONS 108, 93.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents filed a suit for a declaration that the Kaikkan Pathy Narayanaswamy Trust is the private family trust of the respondents and others, for removal of the appellant from management; for appointing new trustees and vesting trust properties in them; for rendition of accounts by the appellant from 28.8.1983 and for settling a scheme.
Finding of the Court:
1. The appellant was not validly appointed trustee. 2. The appellant had rendered himself liable to be removed as he denied the trust and the trust character of the properties belonging to the trust. 3. It is no longer safe in the interest of the trust estate and also the temple and the welfare of the beneficiaries to allow the management to continue in the hands of the appellant. 4. The suit for rendition of accounts by a beneficiary is not barred under section 108 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. 5. The question of misjoinder and non-joinder of parties does not arise at this stage. 6. The mere plea in the written statement may not be sufficient without adducing independent evidence. 7. No evidence was adduced and no issue was raised and hence the appellant is deemed to have waived that point. 8. The appellant has no right to appropriate the income for his personal benefit. 9. Any worshipper can file a suit even in the case of a public temple. 10. The decree passed in the case directing the appellant to render accounts and for framing a scheme is correct.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant was validly appointed trustee? 2. Whether the appellant had rendered himself liable to be removed as he denied the trust and the trust character of the properties belonging to the trust? 3. Whether it is safe in the interest of the trust estate and also the temple and the welfare of the beneficiaries to allow the management to continue in the hands of the appellant? 4. Whether the suit for rendition of accounts by a beneficiary is barred under section 108 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act? 5. Whether the question of misjoinder and non-joinder of parties arises at this stage? 6. Whether the mere plea in the written statement is sufficient without adducing independent evidence? 7. Whether the appellant has the right to appropriate the income for his personal benefit? 8. Whether any worshipper can file a suit even in the case of a public temple? 9. Whether the decree passed in the case directing the appellant to render accounts and for framing a scheme is correct?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The appellant was not validly appointed trustee as per the registered Odampadi dated 18.9.1952. 2. The appellant had rendered himself liable to be removed as he denied the trust and the trust character of the properties belonging to the trust. 3. It is no longer safe in the interest of the trust estate and also the temple and the welfare of the beneficiaries to allow the management to continue in the hands of the appellant. 4. The suit for rendition of accounts by a beneficiary is not barred under section 108 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. 5. The question of misjoinder and non-joinder of parties does not arise at this stage. 6. The mere plea in the written statement may not be sufficient without adducing independent evidence. 7. The appellant has no right to appropriate the income for his personal benefit. 8. Any worshipper can file a suit even in the case of a public temple. 9. The decree passed in the case directing the appellant to render accounts and for framing a scheme is correct.
Final Decision: The appeal is dismissed.
K.M. NATARAJAN, J.
1. The unsuccessful first defendant before the courts below has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed in A.S. No. 1150 of 1979 rendered by a learned single Judge of this court.
2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:—
The respondents filed the suit for a declaration that the Kaikkan Pathy Narayanaswamy Trust is the private family trust of the respondents and others, namely, the appellant/first defendant and defendants 2 to 10 for removal of the appellant from management; for appointing new trustees and vesting trust properties in them; for rendition of accounts by the appellant from 28.8.1983 and for settling a scheme. The case of the respondents-plaintiffs is that one Parameswaran Nadar constructed a temple and installed, Narayanasami therein and he was conducting daily poojas, monthly kattalais and yearly festivals. The said Parameswaran Nadar acquired 11 items of properties for the said purposes. Respondents 1 and 2 are the sons of Parameswaran Nadar. Respondents 3 and 4 are his major grand-sons. During his life time, Parameswaran Nadar himself has constituted as the first trustee. For the management and administration of the temple and its properties, he also executed a registered Odampadi on 18.9.1952. As per the provisions of the said Odampadi Narayanaperumal Nadar, the eldest son of Parameswaran Nadar, was to assist his father during his life time and thereafter he was to enjoy the properties, realise the income therefrom and perform the poojas without default. The other members of the family were entitled to get prasadam and other emoluments. As per the said Odampadi Narayanaperumal Nadar was empowered to appoint his successor. Even after the execution of the registered Odampadi, the father Parameswaran Nadar purchased item 12 and he died subsequently on 12.1.1129 M.E. (28.8.1933) (1954 AD). His eldest son Narayanaperumal Nadar as per the Odampadi, succeeded him as trustee and he died on 23.5.1967, without appointing a successor and without maintaining accounts of the income as well as expenditure. Thereafter, the appellant/first defendant who is the son of the said Narayanaperumal Nadar got into the management of the temple and its properties and had been conducting poojas. But, he did not maintain accounts of the income and expenditure in respect of the trust properties, and he suppressed the same. Hence, the suit is filed by the respondents claiming that they have got a right to see that the trust properties are properly protected and the performance of the trust is properly conducted.
3. The appellant, who is the first defendant, resisted the suit and in the written statement, it was inter alia contended that no trust was founded by Parameswaran Nadar. Though Parameswaran Nadar acquired 11 items of properties, it is not admitted that such acquisition was in favour of any trust. The appellant claimed that Parameswaran Nadar was the absolute owner of the Pathy and Narayanaswamy. Narayanaperumal was managing the affairs of the Pathy as absolute owner.. The said Narayanaperumal appointed the appellant as his successor, and he is the absolute owner of the Pathy. From the date of appointment by Narayanaperumal, he remained in possession as absolute owner of the Pathy from 29.5.1967. He would state that he is the absolute owner of the Pathy and its properties from the date of his appointment by Narayanaperumal and nobody has any right or control over him or the Pathy or the properties. Further, nobody has any right to ask for any accounts. He has further stated that his father never kept any account and hence there is no question of any suppression of accounts. The respondents have no right to ask for framing a scheme for the management of the Narayanaswamy Pathy. After the death of Narayanaperumal the appellant renewed the building at a cost of Rs. 3,000/and has also spent about Rs. 2500/for constructing re
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
