IMPORTANT POINT
Beneficiaries of a religious trust have the right to seek injunctions against unauthorized alienation of trust properties, and the Executive Officer is duty-bound to protect such properties.

JUDGMENT :

G. CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree, dated 29.06.2010 in A.S. No. 224 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Sub-Judge, Dindigul, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 23.06.2005 in O.S. No. 769 of 2004 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul.

1. Challenge is made to the concurrent judgments in A.S. No. 224 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Sub-Judge, Dindigul, dated 29.06.2010, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 23.06.2005 in O.S. No. 769 of 2004 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul.

2. The first respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 769 of 2004 for the relief of permanent injunction that the first respondent should be restrained from selling and encumbering the suit properties belong to the plaintiff temple; that the second and third defendants should be restrained from registering any deed intending to encumber the suit properties; and for costs.

3. The case of the plaintiff/first respondent in brief is that the suit properties belonged to (1) Sa. Ve. Palsamy Chettiar, (2) Sa. Ve. Krishnasamy Chettiar, (3) Sa. Ve. Padmanathan Chettiar (4) Sa. Ve. Umapathy Chettiar, who are the sons of one Saaranga Venkatachalam Chettiar. They have executed a settlement deed(trust deed) on 21st January, 1905, for the purpose of performing the religious obligations during Chitra Pournami Mandakapadi of the plaintiff temple. The suit properties were dedicated for the purpose of performing religious obligations. The object of the trust is to perform the religious obligations during Chitra Pournami festival at plaintiff temple by using the revenue from the properties dedicated to the trust. The trust is to be maintained by the male heirs. They are entitled for temple honours. In their absence, the female heirs and then, the properties to vest with the plaintiff temple. There was also supplementary settlement deed on 01.08.1923. In both the deeds, it is specifically mentioned that the trustees and their heirs are to perform only the religious obligations from the income of the trust and they do not have any powers of alienation/encroachment in respect of the trust properties. In the said circumstances, the first defendant is trying to sell the suit properties to the third parties. First defendant has no right to sell or encumber the suit properties. He is also trying to interfere with the enjoyment of the suit properties by the temple. Thus, the suit is filed.

4. The first defendant filed a written statement stating that as per the obligations in the settlement deed (trust deed), the religious ceremonies are being performed till date. In the absence of male heirs, female heirs are entitled to perform the religious obligations. Till date, there are male legal heirs and they are performing the trust obligations. The allegation that the first defendant is trying to sell the suit property is not correct. The suit properties are not vested with the temple. Only the income from the suit properties is to be used for performing religious obligations. It is decided in W.P. No. 19908 of 1999 that there was no proof that the suit properties belong to the temple. The cause of action pleaded in the plaint is not correct. Thus, the first defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial:

“(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction prayed for, against the first defendant?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction prayed for against defendants 2 and 3?

(iii) To what relief the plaintiff is entitled for?”

6. During the trial before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff, PW-1 was examined and Ex.A1 to A4 were marked. On the side of the defendants, DW-1 was examined and no document was marked.

7. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial