Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUBRAMANIAN, R. SAKTHIVEL, JJ.
Thatha Sampath Kumar and Another – Appellants
Versus
T. Sudharsan and Others – Respondents
O.S.A. Nos. 190 to 193 of 2021, C.M.P. Nos. 8196, 8197, 8202, 8205 of 2021
Decided On : 21-03-2024
Trustee - Suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure - Section 92, Order XXXVI Rule 1 of CPC, Clause 15 of the Letters Patent - 92, 13 of the Letters Patent, Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of the Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and its application in the suit, as well as the powers under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent and the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of the Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017. The court's decision was influenced by the duty to protect the properties of the Trust and the need to appoint a Receiver to take over the administration of the Trust properties.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals arose from a suit filed under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to remove a Trustee and for an injunction restraining him from functioning as a Trustee. The court had granted leave under Section 92 and an injunction, leading to the appeals against the orders of the learned Single Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there were disputes between the families involved in the Trust, with allegations of mal-administration and misappropriation of Trust properties. The court also noted that none of the parties were clean and that there was prima facie evidence of mal-administration. As a result, the court appointed the Administrator General and Official Trustee as Receiver to take over the administration of the Trust properties.
Issues: The issues involved allegations of mal-administration, misappropriation of Trust properties, and disputes between the families involved in the Trust. The court also addressed the similarity of allegations in multiple suits and the need to protect the properties of the Trust.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding of prima facie evidence of mal-administration and the need to protect the Trust properties. The appointment of the Administrator General and Official Trustee as Receiver was a key aspect of the court's decision.
Final Decision: The court appointed the Administrator General and Official Trustee as Receiver to take over the administration of the Trust properties and directed the suits to be tried together. The court also withdrew a pending suit and transferred it to the Original Side of the Court for trial along with the other suits. The Trustees were required to hand over all the account books and properties of the Trust to the Administrator General.
JUDGMENT :
R. SUBRAMANIAN, J.
Prayer in all the appeals: Original Side Appeals filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of CPC read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent: (i) to set aside the order and decree passed in Application No. 9198 of 2019 in C.S. No. 37 of 2019 dated 08.12.2020. (ii) to set aside the order and decree passed in Application No. 1400 of 2019 in C.S. No. 37 of 2019 dated 08.12.2020. (iii) to set aside the order and decree passed in O.A. No. 37 of 2019 in C.S. No. 37 of 2019 dated 08.12.2020. (iv) to set aside the order and decree passed in Application No. 1979 of 2019 in C.S. No. 37 of 2019 dated 08.12.2020.
1. These four appeals are directed against the orders of the learned Single Judge granting injunction restraining the 1st appellant from functioning as Trustee, appointing the 2nd respondent as the Trustee of the 5th respondent Trust, dismissing an application to revoke the leave and application to vacate the injunction granted in O.A. No. 37 of 2019 in C.S. No. 37 of 2019.
2. These proceedings arose in a suit in C.S. No. 37 of 2019 filed under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to remove the 1st defendant as a Trustee and for an injunction restraining him from functioning as a Trustee. Leave under Section 92 was granted by this Court on 07.01.2019. This Court had also found that there is a prima facie case and has granted an injunction in O.A. No. 37 of 2019.
3. The 1st defendant in the suit/the appellant herein had filed two applications in A. No. 1979 of 2019 seeking to vacate the injunction in O.A. No. 37 of 2019 and an application in A. No. 1400 of 2019 seeking to revoke the leave granted to institute the suit in A. No. 93 of 2019. The other two applications are filed by the plaintiffs in the suit/respondents 1 to 4 in the appeal to appoint the 2nd respondent/2nd plaintiff as a Trustee and to injunct the 1st defendant/1st appellant from functioning as a Trustee.
4. The learned Single Judge by a common order has allowed O.A. No. 37 of 2019 and A. No. 9198 of 2019 viz. the application for injunction restraining the 1st defendant/appellant herein from functioning as a Trustee and appointing the 2nd plaintiff in the suit/2nd respondent herein as a Trustee in the place of the 1st defendant. The other two applications viz. A. No. 1979 of 2019 to vacate the injunction granted in O.A. No. 37 of 2019 and A. No. 1400 of 2019 to revoke the leave were dismissed. Hence, these four appeals are before us.
5. The short facts that are required for disposal of these appeals are as follows:
The Trust in question viz. 2nd defendant in the suit was created by one Vupputtur Alwar Chetty. Vast extent of properties situate in George Town, Chennai and Srirangam were dedicated for the purpose of the Trust. The Trustees were obliged to perform various charitable activities out of the income from the properties. The Author had also provided line of succession for a trusteeship. The trusteeship was essentially vested with the two families viz. Vupputtur family and the Thatha family. The Vupputtur family was to appoint three Trustees and the Thatha family was to appoint one Trustee.
6. The disputes arose between the families in the year 2015 which led to a suit in C.S. No. 520 of 2015 being filed by the members of the Vupputtur family against the members of the Thatha family, wherein a declaration was sought for declaring the elections that were held on 13.05.2015 for the Trust as bad and for a consequential injunction restraining the defendants 2 to 5 and 6 therein viz. the members of the Thatha family from functioning as Trustees.
7. Originally an order of injunction was granted by this Court and in the appeals in O.S.A. Nos. 315 and 316 of 2017 a compromise was arrived at, in and by which, both the factions were allowed to function as Trustees. The operative portion of the order of the Division Bench made in those appeals reads as follows:
4. Accordingly, counsels have consented to the following pro term arrangement being put in
AI
Point of Law : Where the allegation of breach of trust, direction for administration of Trust is absent, the suit is maintainable and obtaining leave under Section 92 of the CPC is not necessary.
The Trust possesses a distinct legal identity separate from its founders, exempting it from unauthorized claims of trusteeship from third parties, as affirmed under Section 92 of CPC.
Adverse possession cannot be claimed against trust properties, and trustees are liable for proper management and maintenance of trust accounts.
A suit under Section 92 of the CPC can only be filed against a trust and not by a trust itself; claims that are personal in nature do not qualify for relief under this section.
Trust properties cannot be alienated by trustees; a plaintiff can seek injunction without declaratory relief if the properties are prohibited from alienation.
The suit under Section 92 of the CPC was not maintainable as the validity of the MoU had already been upheld and a separate suit challenging it was barred.
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
