Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.
The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Admn. Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 34. - Appellant
Versus
N.D. Arulmigudhar - Respondent
A.S.No.1093 of 2004
Decided On : 02-12-2022
Trustee - Hereditary Trustee - Tamil Nadu HR & CE Act, 1959 - Ex.A49
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff claimed to be the hereditary trustee of a charitable trust, based on a settlement deed dated 17.12.1914. The trial Court declared the plaintiff as the trustee, setting aside the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner. The appellant was allowed to nominate other trustees in accordance with the original settlement deed and the Tamil Nadu HR & CE Act, 1959.
Finding of the Court:
The trial Court held that the plaintiff is entitled to be declared as the hereditary trustee, but failed to provide for the appointment of other trustees in accordance with the original settlement deed and the law. The appeal was partly allowed, confirming the plaintiff as the hereditary trustee and allowing the appellant to nominate other trustees.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to be declared as the hereditary trustee? 2. What relief(s) are the parties entitled to?
Ratio Decidendi: The donor's intention, purpose of endowments, and the original settlement deed were considered to determine the entitlement of the plaintiff as the hereditary trustee. The trial Court erred in not providing for the appointment of other trustees in accordance with the original settlement deed and the law.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, confirming the plaintiff as the hereditary trustee and allowing the appellant to nominate other trustees. No costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT :
A. The Appeal Suit :
1. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2003 in O.S.No.13 of 1988 decreeing the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff to declare the plaintiff as the hereditary trustee of Arulmigu Soletty Lakshmana Chetty Charities, attached to Arulmigu Adikesava Perumal and Arulmigu Koorathazhwar Temples, Kooram Village, Kancheepuram Taluk, Chengelpattu District, this appeal suit is laid before this Court.
B. The Case of the Plaintiff :
2. The case of the plaintiff was that, originally by a registered deed dated 17.12.1914, termed as Settlement Deed, one Laxmana Chetty endowed the A and B Schedule properties for the purpose of certain specific endowments in the Arulmigu Adikesava Perumal and Arulmigu Koorathalwar Temple, Kooram Village, Kancheepuram Taluk, Chengelpattu District, more specifically for the purpose of -thathi arathanai- and -thiru nakshatra- festivals. As per the settlement deed, the donor was a trustee and along with him, he specifically nominated twelve other persons as trustees and directed that, the trustees should periodically meet and carry out the endowments. He also mentioned that, if any trustee is not willing to accept, replacements should be made. It is also further mentioned in the deed that, after the donor, the wife shall continue to perform the functions. After making such endowments, the donor died in the year 1915 and thereafter the endowments were duly carried on by his wife namely, Mangamma and she died in the year 1937. Before her death, she executed a Will dated 27.05.1935, wherein, she nominated the original plaintiff – her adopted son, as successor of the Trust to perform the endowments. Thereafter, her adopted son/the plaintiff was performing the said endowments.
2.1 While so, when he approached the Deputy Commissioner, by way of O.A.No.25 of 1980 under Section 63(b) of the Tamil Nadu HR & CE Act, 1959 with the prayer to declare him as hereditary trustee of the said endowment, the same was rejected on the ground that, the founder has ordained thirteen prominent persons belonging to various communities and, therefore, his wife could not have constituted him as the trustee and rejected the claim of the petitioner and directed the concerned authorities to take steps to appoint the Executive Officer and Trustees and dismissed the petition.
2.2 Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred by the appellant herein and the said appeal also having been dismissed vide order dated 30.10.1987, this suit is filed inter-alia praying to set aside the said order and also to declare the plaintiff as the Trustee.
2.3 Pending suit, original plaintiff had died and he in turn had constituted his grandson N.D.Arulmigudhar to act as hereditary trustee in respect of the said endowment and as such the said Mr.N.D.Arulmigudhar has been brought on record as the plaintiff.
C. The Case of the Defendant :
3. The suit is resisted by the appellant by stating that, the terms of the settlement deed dated 17.12.1914 alone would prevail and as per the same, the thirteen members of the Trust should manage the endowment. When the said thirteen persons have not been functioning, the authorities under the HR&CE Act have every right to appoint trustees to the endowment under the provisions of the HR & CE Act. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff that the suit properties are yielding only Rs.4,000/- per annum as income is also denied and it is stated that the said properties would fetch the income not less than a sum of Rs.15,000/- per annum. The conclusion arrived at by the Deputy Commissioner as well as by the Commissioner is proper and valid and hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.
D. The Issues & The Trial :
4. On the said pleadings, the trial Court framed the following three issues:-
(i) Whether the plaintiff is hereditary trustee of Arulmigu Soletty Lakshmana Chetty Charities Attached to Arumigu Adikesava Perumal and Arulmigu Koorathazhwar Temple, Kooram Village, Kancheepuram Taluk, Chengelpattu
The entitlement of a hereditary trustee is determined by the donor's intention, purpose of endowments, and the original settlement deed, while also considering the provisions of the Tamil Nadu HR & C....
The removal of a religious endowment trustee for misappropriation relies on the preponderance of probability, not criminal conviction standards. Hereditary trustees are subject to succession rules, r....
The court affirmed that hereditary trusteeship of the temple is governed by a final civil court decree, overriding previous arrangements.
A dedication of property for religious purposes can be established through intent and conduct, even in the absence of formal documentation, and such dedication constitutes a public religious charity ....
The Endowments Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide disputes regarding hereditary rights, and the abolition of such rights does not prevent recognition of individuals as hereditary archakas if previou....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the inalienability of specifically endowed properties for religious purposes and the bar on alienation of Trust property under the TNHR&CE Act, 195....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide disputes over hereditary trusteeship when there are rival claimants, and the authorities under the ....
The court affirmed the hereditary trusteeship of defendants, ruling that plaintiffs failed to prove mismanagement or entitlement to non-hereditary trusteeship under the Hindu Religious Charitable End....
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
