Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS, MADURAI BENCH
L. VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
R. Lakshmi (Died) and Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
Nil - Respondent
C.R.P.(MD) No.1540 Of 2014
Decided On : 30-03-2023
Indian Trusts Act, 1882 - Section 34 - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 227 - Civil Revision - Seeking Permission - Reasonable and justifiable price - Competent person - Executed a Will - Trust property - Private negotiation - Whether an endowment is public or private and then to examine in light of those principle found or established - Held, This Court is of considered view that apart from petitioner's request Section 34 of Indian Trusts Act to sell trust property there are many other significant issues pertaining to trust which has to be settled by trial Court - Section 34 of Indian Trusts Act clearly confers District Court with power of giving its opinion advice or direction on any present questions respecting management or administration of trust-property - This Court cannot unsettle already settled terms of administration of Madam as propounded by settlement deed bearing - Petition Allowed
Key Points: - The trust is confirmed as private because the beneficiaries are a finite, identifiable group (descendants of the founder), not the general public (!) (!) (!) . - Section 34 of the Indian Trusts Act applies to private trusts and allows a trustee to apply to the principal civil court for opinion, advice, or direction on trust management, including sale of property (!) (!) . - A public trust is one where beneficiaries are the general public or an unidentifiable class, and Section 34 does not apply to such trusts (!) (!) . - The court has jurisdiction under Section 34 to give directions but cannot grant blanket permission to sell without hearing all beneficiaries (!) (!) . - Trustees must act jointly; a single trustee cannot sue or be sued alone, and all trustees must be joined as parties in any suit regarding trust property (!) (!) (!) . - Sale of trust property under Section 34 requires the application to specify how the sale will benefit the trust and details on realization and utilization of proceeds (!) (!) . - A trustee cannot renounce or delegate trust duties without court permission or beneficiary consent, and a will attempting such delegation is invalid (!) (!) (!) . - The trial court must identify the real trustee based on the settlement deed and registered will before addressing the sale petition (!) (!) . - An application under Section 34 must be filed by the trustee representing all trustees and interests, and cannot be filed in individual capacity (!) (!) .
ORDER :
(Prayer : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the impugned order and decree dated 31.01.2014 made in Trust O.P.No.1 of 2011 on the file of the District Judge's Court, Sivagangai.)
1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed as against the order passed by the learned District Judge, Sivagangai in Trust O.P.No.1 of 2011. The petitioner in the Trust O.P was one R.Lakshmi. It is seen in the pleadings of the said Trust O.P that R.Lakshmi, W/o.Ramalingam, who has preferred this Civil Revision Petition has succeeded to the office of the Trust, namely, Ramalingaswamy Mutt as the Trustee. During the pendency of this Civil Revision Petition, R.Lakshmi died in the year 2015 and the petitioner P2, one R.Velmurugan, son-in-law of Ramalingam (daughter's husband) was recorded as the legal heir of the deceased sole petitioner as per the order of this Court dated 29.10.2015 made in M.P(MD)No.1 of 2015 in C.R.P(MD)No.1540 of 2014. There is no respondent in both the Trust O.P.No.1 of 2011 as well as in C.R.P(MD)No.1540 of 2014.
2. The Trust O.P was filed by the first petitioner under Section 34 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 seeking the permission of the learned District Judge, Sivaganga to permit the petitioner, the trustee of Ramalingaswamy Trust, Thirupachetty North Village, Manamadurai Taluk, Sivagangai District to dispose of the 'A' and 'B' Scheduled property in the Trust O.P., consisting two items of properties in 'A' Schedule and one item of property in 'B' Schedule in favour of one Durai son of K.Duraisamy of Keel Melkudi Village, Manamadurai Taluk or any other competent person for a reasonable and justifiable price and to invest the same in financial institutions for the purpose of augmenting the income of the said trust.
3. The factual matrix of the Trust O.P is culled out as follows from the petition filed by the first petitioner herein, before the learned District Judge's Court, Sivagangai:
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the determination of whether a trust is public or private depends on the intention of the donors and the nature of the beneficiaries. The cour....
The authority to challenge property sales under the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act requires the claimant to have standing as a trustee or beneficiary; mere worshippers lack legal grounds to cont....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the dedication of the properties for the performance of Naivedyam service to the temple constituted a specific endowment, and the application ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to file an application under Section 92 C.P.C. for managing public trusts involving public charity, and the necessity to implead th....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between private and public trusts and the application of Section 92 CPC.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that trustees must adhere to the specific provisions and restrictions outlined in the testator's will when managing and disposing of trust prope....
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
