The court affirmed that a lack of jurisdiction by the District Munsif does not invalidate sales made by trustees of a public charitable trust, particularly when the petitioner approaches the court with unclean hands.

ORDER :

1. This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the decree and judgment dated 09.01.2024 made in O.S.No.541 of 2003 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif at Cuddalore, on the ground that the learned Munsif lacked jurisdiction.

2. The case of the revision petitioner is that one Ramasamy Chettiar owned a vast extent of property. He created a Trust “Kuluppai Ramasamy Chettiar Charties Sabha” by way of a registered Will dated 27.11.1900. The said Trust is for the benefits of the public. The said Trust was looked after by the family members of the donor and lastly one A.Subramanian was in the management of Trust and its properties. The said A.Subramanian filed the suit in O.S.No.541 of 2023 on the file of the Principal District Munsif against one Radhakrishnan seeking permission of the court to sell some of the properties belonging to the Trust. Initially in the plaint all the properties of the Trust were not included, subsequently by way of an amendment application, all the properties were sought to be included which was allowed. The Secretary of the Trust Mr.A.Subramanian had managed to obtain a decree on 09.01.2024 in collusion with Radhakrishnan for selling the properties and sold some of the item of the schedule mentioned properties for inadequate consideration. The action of the defendant and plaintiff had caused a huge loss to the trust and on account of which, the laudable object of the trust could not be achieved. The object of the founder of the trust got defeated by the collusive decree. The revision petitioner, claiming to be one of the descendants of the original donor, has come up with the present civil revision petition.

3. Heard Mr.A.Muthukumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, Mr.V.Balamurugan, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent, Mr.D.Baskar, learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent, Mr. R. Natarajan, learned counsel for the 4^th respondent, Mr.D.Ravichander, learned counsel for the 5^th respondent; and Mr.Sharath Chandran, learned counsel for Ms.Gopika Nambiar for the respondents 6 and 7.

4. Mr.A.Muthukumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that a suit was instituted before the District Munsif in respect of properties owned by the public charities, and a decree and judgement for the selling of properties were obtained, which is totally against the law. The decree obtained in the suit is nothing but a collusive one. In order to protect the interest of the public charity, the revision petitioner has come with up the present revision petition seeking indulgence of this court for setting aside the collusive decree.

5. Mr.A.Muthukumar would place much reliance on the judgment of this court in the case of J. Savithri v. Selvaraj , (2023) 6 MLJ 70 in support of his contention that in a collateral proceedings , if it comes to the notice of the High Court that the judgment is contrary to law, the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is empowered to set aside such a decree.

6. Per contra, Mr.Sharath Chandran Mr.V.Balamurugan, Mr.D.Baskar, R.Natarajan, Mr.D.Ravichander and would contend that the District Munsif though lacked jurisdiction over the matter, entertained the suit and passed decree and judgment granting permission to the trustees of a trust to sell the properties owned by the trust. The trustee(s) ought to have filed the suit before the principal ci