Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
M/s. P.S. Govindaswamy Naidu & Sons' Charities, represented by its Managing Trustee, L. Gopalakrishnan, Coimbatore & Others - Appellant
Versus
V. Prakash @ G.N.V. Prakash & Another - Respondent
A.S. No. 978 of 2020 & C.M.P. No. 13851 of 2020
Decided On : 04-03-2021
resides - Trustee Qualification - Chapter IV (B) (a) (ii) - Madras Presidency - The court discussed the interpretation of the term 'resides' in the context of the scheme of administration governing the Trust. It emphasized the importance of the literal meaning of 'resides' and the necessity for the plaintiff to prove his residency within Madras Presidency to qualify for the Trusteeship. The court held that the evidence presented by the plaintiff was inadequate to establish his residency, and therefore, set aside the trial court judgment.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the qualification of a trustee for a public Trust. The plaintiff sought recognition as the Founder Trustee following the demise of the previous trustee. The defendant Trustees contended that the plaintiff did not possess the necessary qualification to be appointed as a Founder Trustee in accordance with the scheme of administration governing the Trust.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove his residency within Madras Presidency, as required by the scheme of administration. It held that the trial court judgment in favor of the plaintiff was contrary to his own admission and other evidence, and therefore, set aside the judgment.
Issues: The key issues included the qualification of the plaintiff for the post of Founder Trustee as per the scheme of administration, the interpretation of the term 'resides' within Madras Presidency, and the applicability of the doctrine of res judicata.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the literal meaning of the term 'resides' and the necessity for the plaintiff to prove his residency within Madras Presidency to qualify for the Trusteeship. It held that the evidence presented by the plaintiff was inadequate to establish his residency, and therefore, set aside the trial court judgment.
Final Decision: The Appeal Suit was allowed, and the trial court judgment was set aside. The connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition was also closed, and no costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT :
Prayer: Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of C.P.C against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.160 of 2018 dated 12.10.2020, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore.
1. This Appeal Suit is filed against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in a suit filed for declaration and consequential injunction.
2. The background facts of the case is that M/s. P.S. Govindaswamy Naidu & Sons' Charities is a public Trust nearly 100 years old. It is running several charitable and education institutes. The Trust was initially administered based on the Trust deed dated 25.01.1926. To improve the efficiency, the General body of the Trust resolved to get legal opinion and frame a scheme for the Management. Accordingly, the Court of Subordinate Judge at Coimbatore on 29.02.1936 framed scheme of administration pursuant to the decree passed in suit in O.S.No.145 of 1935. As per the scheme, the Trust shall be administered by the Board of Trustees comprising of 9 Trustees under two categories. Out of nine Trustees 4 shall be from the family of founder called as Founder Trustees. The qualification for the Trusteeship is listed under chapter IV (B). While the term of office for other Trustees shall be five years, whereas, for the Founder Trustee, he shall hold office till his life. The point in dispute is one of the qualification prescribed for Trustee that he should reside in the Madras presidency.
3. In the year 1938, one of the Founder Trustee by name Mr. Narayanaswamy Naidu died leaving behind his two sons viz., G.N. Venkatapathy and V. Rajan. The said Venkatapathy took the office of Founder Trustee and held the Trusteeship till his demise in the year 1994. On his demise Rajan held the office till 2012. On 25.04.2012, Rajan submitted a letter of resignation from the office of Founder Trustee and also placed the candidature of his son by name Naren Rajan to be elected as a Founder Trustee. As per the scheme of administration, the male members of the Founder Trustee family has to nominate one among them for the post of Trusteeship representing their family. When Rajan proposed the candidature of his son Naren Rajan, dispute arose whether Rajan after his resignation have any right to nominate or vote in the selection process of the hereditary Trustee of his branch. This issue was subject matter of O.S.No.631 of 2012 filed by Rajan and his son Naren Rajan against the Trust and Trustees including V. Prakash @ G.N.V. Prakash, who was the probable candidate to represent the family of Narayanasamy Naidu for the Trusteeship.
4. In the said suit, the trial Court held that Rajan has lost his right to vote and therefore, he cannot nominate his successor, when there is only two eligible candidate one V. Prakash and another Naren Rajan. Without adverting to the issue of qualification criteria where they reside, the District Court directed the other Founder Trustees to choose one among these two candidates in view of the dead lock. This judgment was challenged before the High Court in A.S.No.178 of 2013. Meanwhile pending disposal of the appeal, V. Prakash/plaintiff on 18.04.2013 was unanimously nominated as Founder Trustee to represent Narayanaswamy Naidu branch. The High Court by order dated 30.06.2014, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and held that in view of tendering resignation, Rajan has lost right to contest for the office of Founder Trustee, but had not lost his right to vote. In the said scenario, with three voters and two candidates, Naren Rajan son of Rajan was selected for the Trusteeship to represent Narayanaswamy Naidu branch of family.
5. The order of the High Court passed in A.S.No.178 of 2013 was challenged by V. Prakash before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However the said SLP(C).No.26503 of 2014 was dismissed. On 21.05.2015, Naren Rajan died and vacancy again arose in the office of
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
