The main legal point established in the judgment is that under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, a property dedicated for charitable activities cannot be alienated, and any such alienation is not valid in the eye of the law.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2205 in O.S.No.128 of 2004 on the file of the Ist Additional District Judge (PCR) Tiruchirappalli,.

1. Aggrieved over the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the present appeal came to be filed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein, as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of this Appeal Suit, is as follows:

3. (1). The plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 3 idols are of Great antiquity and from the principal saivite shrines in South India honoured by great Saivite Saints and worshipped not only by ordinary people but also by many kings. Festivals to those deities viz., the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 3 are taken so seriously by their devotees, that property came to be dedicated to the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 3 idols for the performance of endowments. The suit property was owned by one Mr.Munia Pillai. The suit property was endowed in favour of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3 Temples for various charities by a Trust Deed, dated 22.06.1983. The said Munia Pillai used the entire income from the suit properties for performing Dharmas (Endowments) like special abishegam and alangaram during the festival days in the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 idols and also to run golden chariot during the festival days.

3. (2). Similarly the 11th defendant was appointed as a Trustee and he was appointed only to monitor the other charities. The defendants 4 to 10 were not given any power of alienation or creating encumbrance. The defendants 4 to 10 have not performed the religious endowments imposed on them. The defendants 4 to 10 have chosen to alienate the suit property to the 12th defendant which is void in law and will not bind on the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 3 idols. The defendants 13 to 23 were in possession, as tenants. The 12th defendant has taken proceedings against the defendants 13 to 23 for eviction and also he is attempting to demolish the constructions and altering the physical features of the suit property. Hence, the present suit.

4. The 4th and 11th defendants filed a written statement. In the written statement, it is stated that the defendants 4 and 11 have no knowledge about the functions and festivals conducted by the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 3. The fourth defendant never took part in the alleged trust deed executed by the said M.Munia Pillai. The fourth defendant also did not take part in the alleged sale deed said to have been executed by the defendants 3 to 10 in favour of the 12th defendant. The defendant Nos.5, 6, 7 and 9 took a stand that the property originally belonged to one M.Munia Pillai. There is no trust created in favour of the plaintiff idol or defendants 1 to 3. There was no dedication of property for any trust. Hence, the suit is not maintainable. His further contention is that certain mandagapadies have to be performed from a portion of the income from the suit property. Only a charge on a portion of income of the suit property is created. The tenants have not paid the rent. The defendants have decided to dispose the property so as to deposit the amounts in a Bank and from the income to do the mandagapadies to serve the real purpose and satisfy the real intention of the creator of the deed. The 12th defendant has purchased the property for a valuable consideration.

5. The 12th defendant has taken a stand that the defendants 5, 6 and 7 have taken a decision from all the trustees and decided to dispose the suit property so as to deposit the due amount after disposal in a Bank and with the interest accruing from such deposit to use for the regular deeds as recited in the family trust and to satisfy the real purpose of the family trust deed and to serve the real purpose of the family trust and to satisfy the real intention of the creator of the trust deed. It is o