SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Mad) 2429

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.SRIMATHY, J.
Congress Ponvizha Mandapam Trust, Through its Managing Trustee, S.Gopal - Appellant
Versus  
P.Veldurai  - Respondent 
A.S.(MD)No.161 of 2019
Decided on : 16-12-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr.G.Dhanapal
For the Respondent: Mr.R.Mariappan

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.

Headnote:(A) Indian Trust Act - The suit concerns ownership and management of a Trust and the legitimacy of Trustees. Section 92 of CPC governs when court permission is required for suits involving public charities; permission needed to remove or appoint trustees. (Paras 11, 12)

(B) Trust Law - The Trust enjoys separate legal identity from its founders and valid trustees. Allegations of breach must be substantiated by the party asserting them. (Paras 15, 16)

(C) Individual Legal Status - The Trust retains legal standing even with unregistered subsequent appointments; this does not grant third parties the right to interfere. (Paras 17, 18)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs, being the duly appointed Trustees of the Trust, sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the defendants, who claimed conflicting trusteeship through a political committee. The trial court initially dismissed the suit based on jurisdictional procedural issues.

Findings of Court:
The court ruled in favor of plaintiffs, affirming their status as legitimate trustees and denying the defendants’ claims of entitlement.

Issues: Primary issues included jurisdiction under Section 92 of CPC, rightful trusteeship, and interference in trust management by outsiders.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Section 92 permits only authorized parties to challenge trustee actions and that the Trust’s independent legal identity preempts interference by unauthorized parties.

Result: Appeal allowed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the trust and parties. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. defendants argue legal standing and issues. (Para 7)
3. trial court's issues and proceedings. (Para 8 , 10 , 11)
4. court analysis on necessity of permission. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
5. trust as a separate legal entity. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
6. plaintiffs' responsibilities and court observations. (Para 19 , 20)
7. final judgment and decree. (Para 21)

JUDGMENT :

S. SRIMATHY, J.

The present First Appeal is filed by plaintiffs against the Judgment and Decree dated 31.10.2018 passed in O.S.No.65 of 2017 on the file of the 3rd Additional District Court, Tirunelveli.

2. The plaintiffs are the appellants herein and the defendants are the respondents herein. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred as plaintiffs and defendants as per the ranking in the suit.

3. The suit is filed by the plaintiffs for (a) declaring that the persons mentioned in the 1st schedule to this plaint are the Trustees of the 1st plaintiff Trust, (b) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants their men, servants, agents etc., from in any manner disturbing the persons mentioned in the 1st schedule to the plaintiff in any way from enjoying possession and managing the property of the 1st plaintiff Trust more particularly described as schedule 2 herein.

4. The brief facts as stated by the plaintiffs are that the property in the 2nd schedule of the plaint consisting of building absolutely belongs to the first plaintiff Trust. The plaintiff trust was created by three Congress Martyrs viz., 1. Gomathi Sankara Diksthadar, 2. Marimuthu Konar, 3. K.N.Harihara Iyer. As founder Trustees they have executed a registered Deed of Trust dated 20.10.1954 in Document No.2499 of 1954. One of the founder Trustees namely Marimuthu Konar died in the year 1955 and another founder Trustee Gomathi Sankara Diksthadar died in the year 1971. Then surviving founder trustee K.N.Harihara Iyer appointed K.V.Subramanian son of Veeraputhira Moopanar and M.P.Swamy son of Pothikasala Thevar in the place of the deceased founder trustees by exercising the power granted under the Trust Deed for appointing trustees. While so, the said K.V.Subramanian and the founder Trustee K.N.Harihara Iyer resigned the Trusteeship on 02.10.1988 and 01.08.1991 respectively. The only remaining Trustee, M.P.Swamy appointed Sangamuthu Thevar and Ilayaperumal as Trustees in the place of the resigned Trustees K.V.Subramanian and K.N.Harihara Iyer and he has executed a “Deed of Trust” to that effect on 10.06.1992. While so, the said M.P.Swamy and Ilayaperumal died, then the only surviving Trustee Sangamuthu Thevar appointed S.Gopal (the 2nd plaintiff), Dr.Neelakanda Iyer, T.S.R. Venkatramana and Gomathinayagam as Trustees to the 1st plaintiff Trust and to that effect the said Sangamuthu Thevar executed a Deed dated 27.10.2014. The Trustees S.Gopal, K.Neelakandan, T.S.R.Venkatramana and Gomathinayagam have been managing the Trust and they were in possession and enjoyment of the 2nd schedule property in their capacity as Trustees to the 1st plaintiff Trust. The 2nd plaintiff as a Managing Trustee with the consultation of other Trustees executed a Deed dated 22.06.2015 and it makes it clear that the Trustees were the 2nd plaintiff Gopal, Gamathinayagam, Venkatramana and Dr.Neelakandan. Subsequently, the 2nd plaintiff S.Gopal in his capacity as a Managing Trustee to the 1st plaintiff Trust in consultation with other Trustees appointed S.Valli daughter of Sangamuthu Thevar as one of the Trustees in addition to the existing Trustees as above mentioned by a deed dated 17.03.2017. Hence, the present Trustees of the first plaintiff Trust are as given below and their names are given in the 1st schedule to the plaint:

1. S.Gopal

2. Gamathinayagam

3. T.S.R.Venkatramana

4. Dr.Neelakandan

5. S.Valli

5.(i) The 2nd plaintiff Gopal, as already mentioned is a Managing Trustee to the first plaintiff Trust. He is a member in the Indian Nat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top