Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. JAGADEESAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. KANAGARAJ
Swamy Atmananda, Pasupathipalayam Karur Town, Karur Taluk & Others
Versus
Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam rep. by its Secretary Swami Sadananda & Others
Appeal No. 568 of 1998
Decided On :Decided on: 13-10-1999
RES JUDICATA - SUIT FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE AND INJUNCTION - EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS - TRUST - AGENT - RELATIONSHIP OF PRINCIPAL AND AGENT - RES JUDICATA - MAINTAINABILITY OF SUIT - COURT FEES - SOCIETY CLAIMING TO BE A TRUST - RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE SOCIETY - OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY BY SANYASIS - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY - ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a registered society, filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction against the defendants, claiming ownership and management of certain educational institutions. The defendants contended that the plaintiff was only an agent of the second defendant, a trust, and that the institutions were founded and managed by the first defendant in his individual capacity. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the first defendant was only an agent of the plaintiff and that the relationship between the parties was that of principal and agent.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court upheld the trial court's decision, finding that the plea of res judicata was valid as the issue of the relationship between the parties had been determined in an earlier suit. The court also held that the suit was maintainable and that the court fees paid were correct. The court further found that the plaintiff, being a society, could not claim to be a trust and that the rules and regulations of the society prohibited sanyasis from owning personal property. The court also held that the first defendant could not claim ownership of the institutions as he had acquired them in his capacity as an agent of the plaintiff.
Issues: 1. Whether the plea of res judicata was valid? 2. Whether the suit was maintainable? 3. Whether the court fees paid were correct? 4. Whether the plaintiff, being a society, could claim to be a trust? 5. Whether the rules and regulations of the society prohibited sanyasis from owning personal property? 6. Whether the first defendant could claim ownership of the institutions as he had acquired them in his capacity as an agent of the plaintiff?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The plea of res judicata was valid as the issue of the relationship between the parties had been determined in an earlier suit. 2. The suit was maintainable as the first defendant was only an agent of the plaintiff and the relationship between the parties was that of principal and agent. 3. The court fees paid were correct as the suit was properly valued and the court fees were paid under the relevant section of the Court Fees Act. 4. The plaintiff, being a society, could not claim to be a trust as the two entities are distinct and have different legal characteristics. 5. The rules and regulations of the society prohibited sanyasis from owning personal property as such property automatically became the property of the society. 6. The first defendant could not claim ownership of the institutions as he had acquired them in his capacity as an agent of the plaintiff and not in his individual capacity.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed and the trial court's decree was upheld.
Key Points: - The relationship between the plaintiff and the first defendant was that of principal and agent, and the first defendant could not claim ownership of the institutions acquired in his capacity as an agent (!) (!) (!) . - The suit was maintainable as the first defendant was only an agent of the plaintiff, and the plea of res judicata was valid based on the earlier suit (!) (!) (!) . - The plaintiff, being a society, could not claim to be a trust, and the rules and regulations of the society prohibited sanyasis from owning personal property (!) (!) .
JAGADEESAN, J.
For easy reference, the parties are mentioned as stated in the plaint.
2. The defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.I 254/94 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tiruchi are the appellants herein. The first respondent herein filed the said suit against the appellants and 13 others who are the respondents 2 to 14 herein. The suit has been filed for declaration of title of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with the right of management of the plaintiff over the suit property and for rendition of accounts.
3. The case of the plaintiff is that it is a registered society and is functioning from the year 1942. It was founded by late Swamy Chidbavananda who attained Maha Samadhi in the year 1985. He was propagating the ideals of late Swamy Ramakrishna and Swamy Vivekananda. Initially, he was functioning at Ooty and later shifted to Thiruparaithurai. Number of branches were established by him in various places viz., Thiruvedagam, Courtallam, Chitraichavadi, Thirunelveli, Kodaikanal, Ramanathapuram, Rameswaram, Salem and Karur. Almost in all the places, he has established the educational institutions and ashrams as well as dispensaries to help the poor. Swami Chidbavananda, during his life time had acquired various properties by collecting funds from the public. The suit properties have acquired the character of Trust property.
4. The first defendant in the suit was an employee in a Mill at Coimbatore who left his job and moved to Thiruparaithurai in 1962 as a disciple of late Swami Chidbavananda. He joined as an ordinary member and subsequently he was taken as a Brahmachari. In 1970, he became a sanyasi. On his attaining sanyasasram he was assigned job at Thiruvedagam and later transferred to Karur in 1976.
5. The plaintiff-society established a number of educational institutions at Karur with the donations collected from the public and also with the funds available through the trusts called Vairaperumal Trust and Tathinagireeswarar Trust. The object of the above two trusts was to dedicate their properties to the plaintiff society to enable them to put up educational institutions at Pasupathipalayam, Karur. An extent of 10.68 acres was taken on lease by the plaintiff society from one Ramalingam Chettiar in August, 1976 and a primary school was started. Subsequently Vivekananda Higher Secondary School, Vivekananda Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Vivekananda Elementary School, Vivekananda Primary School and Saradha Girls Higher Secondary School were started. The plaintiff Society is the educational agency in respect of these institutions. The management was carried on by passing the resolutions by the plaintiff Society for which the first defendant is also a party. The first defendant had acquiesced in the ownership of the plaintiff with regard to all these institutions and the right of the plaintiff as the Educational Agency of all the institutions. The expenses for the institutions had been met from out of the funds of the plaintiff society. The plaintiff society got a lease of 247.95 acres of land from one Paranjothi Ammal and Periya Nachammal wherein Sri Sarada Niketan Arts and Science College of Women was constructed. The first defendant is only an agent representing the plaintiff at Karur, discharging his functions as Secretary and Correspondent. He has to carry out the instructions given by the plaintiff society and he has no independent role to play. On 1.10.84, he was transferred to Thiruvedagam from Karur which fact was also informed to all the educational authorities. Subsequently the first respondent was again transferred to Karur in November, 1984.
6. In August 1990, when the first defendant involved in some controversies leading to publication in the newspaper, he was advised to go to a pilgrimage and the first defendant also agreed. But, however, subsequently he changed his mind and refused. Thereupon certain charges wer
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
