M.A.M.R.MUTHIAH vs THE CHETTINAD CHARITABLE TRU - 2021 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 38431

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 38431

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Order reserved on 06.08.2021 Order delivered on 22.09.2021 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN A.No.6433 of 2019, O.A.No.156 of 2019 and C.S.No.138 of 2019 A.No.6433 of 2019 M.A.M.R.Muthiah (aged 48 years)
Having office at Rani Seethai Hall Building, 5th Floor, No.603, Annasalai, Chennai – 600 006. ..Applicant vs.
1. The Chettinad Charitable Trust represented by its Trustee Dr.A.C.Muthiah, (aged 76 years), Chettinad House, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028
2. Mrs.Geetha Muthiah (aged 44 years)
W/o M.A.M.R.Muthiah Having office at Rani Seethai Hall Building, 5th Floor, No.603, Annasalai, Chennai – 600 006.
3. M.Ramanathan, (aged 55 years)
S/o AR.Murugappan Having office at Rani Seethai Hall Building, 5th Floor, No.603, Annasalai, Chennai – 600 006. ..Respondents Prayer in A.No.6433/2019: To reject the plaint in C.S.No.138 of 2019 filed by the plaintiffs as a clear abuse of process and does not disclose any cause of action.
For Applicant : Mr.M.S.Krishnan, Senior Counsel for Mr.T.Balaji For Respondents : Mr.R.Srinivas for Mr.S.Sithirai Anandam for R1 Mr.R.Ramesh for R2 C.S.No.138 of 2019 The Chettinad Charitable Trusteeship represented by its Trustee Dr.A.C.Muthiah, aged 76 years, Chettinad House,Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028 ..Plaintiff -vs-
1. M.A.M.R.Muthiah (aged 48 years)
2. Mrs.Geetha Muthiah (aged 44 years)
W/o M.A.M.R.Muthiah Defendants 1 & 2 are having office at Rani Seethai Hall Building, 5th Floor, No.603, Annasalai, Chennai – 600 006. 3. M.Ramanathan, (aged 55 years)
S/o AR.Murugappan Having office at Rani Seethai Hall Building, 5th Floor, No.603, Annasalai, Chennai – 600 006. ..Defendants Prayer in C.S.No.138 of 2019:
(1) Declare that the 1st defendant is not a lawfully inducted trustee of the plaintiff trust. (1A) declare the the Co-option of the 2nd defendant by 1st defendant as a trustee of the plaintiff Trust on 07.12.2015 is not true, valid and is void and unlawful and that she is therefore not a trustee of the plaintiff trust. (1B) Permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from in any manner interfering with the administration or functioning of the plaintiff trust; (2) Declare that the lease deed dated 15.04.2016 executed by the 3rd defendant representing the Plaintiff Trust in favour of the 1st defendant is unlawful, illegal, invalid, void and not binding on the Plaintiff Trust; (2A) Directing the defendant No.1 to handover peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff trust. For Plaintiff : Mr.R.Srinivas for Mr.S.Sithirai Anandam For Defendants : Mr.M.S.Krishnan, Senior Counsel for Mr.T.Balaji for D1 Mr.R.Ramesh for D2 O.A.No.156 of 2019 The Chettinad Charitable Trusteeship represented by its Trustee Dr.A.C.Muthiah, aged 76 years, Chettinad House, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028 ..Applicant -vs-
1. M.A.M.R.Muthiah (aged 48 years)
2. Mrs.Geetha Muthiah (aged 44 years)
W/o M.A.M.R.Muthiah Defendants 1 & 2 are having office at Rani Seethai Hall Building, 5th Floor, No.603, Annasalai, Chennai – 600 006. 3. M.Ramanathan, (aged 55 years)
S/o AR.Murugappan Having office at Rani Seethai Hall Building, 5th Floor, No.603, Annasalai, Chennai – 600 006. ..Respondents Prayer in O.A.No.156 of 2019:
To pass an order of ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents/
defendants 1 to 3 their men, agents, servants and anyone claiming under or through them from in any manner demolishing or altering any portion of the suit property morefully described in the schedule mentioned property pending disposal of the suit.
For Applicant : Mr.R.Srinivas for Mr.S.Sithirai Anandam for R1 For Respondents : Mr.M.S.Krishnan, Senior Counsel for Mr.T.Balaji for D1 Mr.R.Ramesh for D2

Judgement Key Points

The legal document pertains to a complex dispute involving the validity of trusteeship and the administration of a charitable trust. The key points are as follows:

Parties Involved: The applicant is M.A.M.R. Muthiah, who claims to be a trustee of the Chettinad Charitable Trust, represented by the Trust's founder trustee Dr. A.C. Muthiah. The respondents include the Trust, represented by Dr. Muthiah, and other individuals alleged to have been improperly co-opted as trustees (!) (!) .
Nature of Dispute: The core issue is whether the applicant was lawfully inducted as a trustee of the Trust. The plaintiff contends that the applicant's induction in 2004 was illegal because it was done unilaterally by another trustee without proper authority or consent, making his claim to trusteeship invalid (!) (!) .
Allegations of Forgery and Fabrication: The defendant alleges that the document purportedly evidencing the applicant's induction as a trustee is forged, especially pointing out discrepancies in the address details (Madras vs. Chennai) and the timing of the document's creation, which was found to be fabricated for the purpose of the suit (!) (!) .
Previous Litigation and Res Judicata: The applicant previously filed suits challenging the trusteeship and the validity of co-option procedures. The courts have observed that these suits involve similar issues and have found that some documents and claims were fabricated, leading to orders restraining the applicant from acting as a trustee or interfering with the Trust's administration (!) (!) (!) .
Limitation and Knowledge: The respondent argues that the suit is barred by limitation because the applicant's induction as a trustee was known to the Trust's representatives since 2004 or at least from the time of the earlier suits filed in 2014. The Court notes that the plaintiff was aware of the facts and the applicant's claim well within the statutory limitation period, rendering the suit time-barred (!) (!) (!) .
Abuse of Court Process: The court finds that the present suit is an abuse of process, primarily because it seeks to re-litigate issues already decided or pending before other courts. The suit appears to be filed with an oblique motive to obstruct pending litigation and to achieve collateral purposes, which further undermines its maintainability (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Locus Standi and Authority to Sue: The court also questions the locus standi of the applicant to sue on behalf of the Trust, given the controversy surrounding his induction and the adverse findings in previous proceedings. The applicant's claim to trusteeship is considered dubious, and his attempt to represent the Trust is viewed as mischievous (!) (!) .
Rejection of the Suit: Based on the findings of fabrication, abuse of process, and barred limitation, the court concludes that the suit is not maintainable. Consequently, the application for rejection of the plaint under the relevant procedural rules is allowed, and the suit is dismissed (!) (!) .
Injunction Proceedings: The interim injunction application was also dismissed as the main suit was found to be untenable. The proceedings highlight that the issues raised are intertwined with ongoing litigation and that the suit's purpose is to interfere with the pending cases (!) .

In summary, the court dismissed the suit primarily because it was found to be based on fabricated documents, filed with malicious intent, and barred by limitation, constituting an abuse of the judicial process. The applicant's authority to act as a trustee and his claims were challenged on legal and factual grounds, leading to the rejection of the suit.

C O M M O N O R D E R

The applicant in A.No.6433 of 2019 is the 1st defendant in the suit. The

1st respondent herein is the plaintiff.

2. The Suit has been filed for the following reliefs:

1. Declare that the 1st defendant is not a lawfully inducted trustee of the plaintiff trust.

1A. Declare the the co-option of the 2nd defendant by 1st defendant as a trustee of the plaintiff Trust on 07.12.2015 is not true, valid and is void and unlawful and that she is therefore, not a trustee of the plaintiff trust.

1B. Permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from in any manner interfering with the administration or functioning of the plaintiff trust;

2. Declare that the lease deed dated 15.04.2016 executed by the 3rd defendant representing the Plaintiff Trust in favour of the 1st defendant is unlawful, illegal, invalid, void and not binding on the Plaintiff Trust;

2A. Directing the defendant No.1 to handover peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff trust.

3. The facts and circumstances which gave rise to the filing of the present application are stated hereunder.

(a) The plaintiff is the Charitable Trust which has been created by virtue of the Trust Deed dated 29.03.1972. The deed was executed by one Raja Sir M.A.Muthiah Chettiar. According to the stipulation in the Trust Deed, the suit property which belonged to the founder Trustee, Raja Sir M.A.Muthiah Chettiar, shall vest in the plaintiff trust and shall be utilised for the charitable purposes in terms of the objects of the Trust . The Trust Deed enumerated various charitable objects like establishing, maintaining educational, technical or technological Institutions of all kinds in India, establishing hospitals, dispensaries, maintaining the houses of orphan or supporting and educating students and destitute children in India etc.

(b) Subsequent to the founding of the Trust, Dr.Raja Sir M.A.Muthiah Chettiar, co-opted his own son, Dr.M.A.M.Ramasamy, as the co-trustee of the trust on 07.04.1984. Immediately after the co-option of his son, Dr.Raja Sir M.A.Muthiah Chettiar died on 12.05.1984. According to the plaintiff, the surviving trustee Dr.M.A.M.Ramasamy, co-opted his cousin Dr.A.C.Muthiah, grand son of the founder Trustee late Dr.Raja Sir M.A.Muthiah Chettiar, as another trustee on 30.09.1991. It further transpired that the said Dr.M.A.M.Ramasamy appeared to have unilaterally co-opted the applicant herein, the 1st defendant in the suit, as one of the Trustees of Plaintiff Trust in terms of letter dated 30.04.2004.

(c) According to Dr.A.C.Muthiah, who claims himself to be the sole trustee of the plaintiff trust as on date, the applicant/ 1st defendant was the adopted son of Dr.M.A.M.Ramasamy and during the lifetime of Dr.M.A.M.Ramasamy, due to serious differences and strain in the relationship between the father and the adopted son, Dr.M.A.M.Ramasamy disowned the applicant/1st defendant and appeared to have even executed a Will dated

18.02.2015 declaring that the applicant/ 1st defendant was not his son.

(d) Subsequently, Dr.M.A.M.Ramasamy expired on 02.12.2015 and according to the plaintiff, the Trust is represented only by the sole surviving trustee, Dr.A.C.Muthiah after the death of Dr.M.A.M.Ramasamy on 02.12.2015. According to him, the induction of the applicant/1st defendant as a trustee on

30.04.2004 was illegal as it was unilaterally done by Dr.M.A.M.Ramasamy without the consent of the other trustee, namely himself.

(e) While the matter stood thus, the applicant herein, the 1st defendant in the suit filed O.S.No.6359/2014 before the City Civil Court, Chennai, seeking the following reliefs.

a) Permanent Injunction restraining the defendant from conducting any meeting of "Chettinad Charitable Trust" on 18.11.2014 at Chettinad House, Raja Annamalaipuram Chennai - 600 0028 in the absence of the plaintiff or any other future date without the participation of the Plaintiff.

b) Permanent Injunction restraining the defendant from unilaterally Co-opting or app

Click Here to Read the rest of this document