Back
2023 Supreme(Mad) 2999
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P. VADAMALAI, J.
K. Adaikkalam – Petitioner
Versus
Sholapuram Chettiar Uravin Murai Trust – Respondent
C.R.P. (MD) Nos. 1920, 1921 of 2017, C.M.P. (MD) Nos. 9894, 9895 of 2017
Decided On : 27-06-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: G. Gomathi Shankar.
For the Respondents: M.R.S. Prabhu, K. Christy Theboral.
Delegation of powers under the Trust Act and the recognition of power of attorney for limited purposes.
Headnote:
Trust Act - Power of Attorney - Delegation of Powers - Recognition of Power of Attorney and Receiving Additional Documents
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff Trust filed a suit for declaration and recovery of possession of a property, and the President of the Trust, due to old age, gave a special power of attorney to the secretary of the Trust to conduct the suit proceedings. The defendants objected to the recognition of the power of attorney and the receipt of additional documents.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the delegation of power to the secretary for limited purposes did not violate the Trust Act, and recognizing the power of attorney was necessary. The Court also held that allowing the receipt of additional documents would not cause prejudice to the defendants.
Issues: Recognition of power of attorney, delegation of powers under the Trust Act, and the relevance of receiving additional documents.
Ratio Decidendi: The delegation of power for limited purposes did not violate the Trust Act, and recognizing the power of attorney was necessary. Allowing the receipt of additional documents would not cause prejudice to the defendants.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petitions and the connected Miscellaneous Petitions, without imposing any costs.
ORDER :
PRAYER in C.R.P. (MD) No. 1920 of 2017: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order and decree passed dated 22.09.2017 made in I.A. No. 199 of 2017 in O.S. No. 166 of 2013 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Kumbakonam and allow this Civil Revision Petition.
PRAYER in C.R.P. (MD) No. 1921 of 2017: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order and decree passed dated 22.09.2017 made in I.A. No. 198 of 2017 in O.S. No. 166 of 2023 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Kumbakonam.
1. These Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the order and decree dated 22.09.2017 passed in I.A. Nos. 199 of 2017 and 198 of 2017 in O.S. No. 166 of 2013 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Kumbakonam.
2. The defendants 3 and 4 in O.S. No. 166 of 2013 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Kumbakonam are the Revision Petitioners in these two Civil Revision Petitions.
3. The brief facts of the case:
The 1st respondent/plaintiff Trust through its President field the suit in O.S. No. 166 of 2013 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Kumbakonam against the defendants 1 to 9 for declaration and recovery of possession of the suit property mentioned therein. Pending suit, the President of the Trust is not able to conduct the case due to his age and he has given special power of attorney to the secretary of the Trust, to continue suit proceedings. Hence, the power agent filed the petition in I.A. No. 199 of 2017 to recognize power of attorney and filed the petition in I.A. No. 198 of 2017 to receive additional documents. The defendants objected both petitions by filing a counter. After hearing both, the Trial Court has allowed both petitions. Aggrieved by the orders of the Trial Court, the defendants 3 and 4 approached this Court by way of these respective Civil Revision Petitions.
4. Heard both side and perused the records in these Civil Revision Petitions.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners has submitted his arguments that in the plaint averments itself, it is stated that the President of the Trust alone is having powers to file a suit. As per the provision of Section 47 of the Trust Act, the power cannot be delegated to other person and so, the order of recognizing the power of attorney is against the law. So also the document to be received is issued after the suit. But, the Trial Court without considering the facts and circumstances of the case allowed both petitions. Therefore, these Civil Revision petitions may be allowed.
6. The learned counsel for the first respondent vehemently contended that of course, the President of the Trust has to file the suit as per plaint averments. But, due to his old age, he cannot attend court proceedings. He has given only limited purpose to conduct the suit proceedings on his behalf and has not given delegation of power of the administration of the Trust. The defendant cannot oppose such power. Moreover, whether the additional document is relevant or not can be decided at the time of trial and mere permission to receive it, will not cause any prejudice to the other parties. In support of his argument he placed reliance on the judgments reported in M. Nelson Babu vs. K. Kamalesh Babu and K. Vijayakumar, 2010 (1) LW 289 and Bipin Shantilal Panchal vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2001) 3 SCC 1.
7. On hearing both and on perusal of records, it is clear that the first respondent/plaintiff Trust through its President filed the main suit. It is the case of the plaintiff that since the President is now aged, he finds difficulties in attending Court proceedings and so he has given a special power of attorney to the Secretary of the Trust with the limited purpose to conduct suit proceedings. It is not meant that the entire function has been delegated by the president. The provision of the Section 47 of the Trust Act prohibits the delegation of
