1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021

THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

A.No.6075 of 2017

and

O.A.No.982 of 2017

in

C.S.No.68 of 1983

Pazhaverkadu Venkatesami Gramani

Trust by its present Trustee,

S.Venkataraman

..Plaintiff

-Versus-

Gemini Industrial Estate,

rep. by its Partner Sri Vasanji Vijpal

..Defendant

O.A.No.982 of 2017 and A.No.6075 of 2017:

Pazhaverkadu Venkatasami

Gramani Trust

rep. by its present Trustee

S.Venkataraman,

Now office at No.7, Valeeswarar Koil Street,

Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.

..Applicant/Plaintiff

-Versus-

1.Gemini Industrial Estate

Rep. by its Partner

Vasanji Vijpal,

..Respondents/Defendants

2.Vasanji Vijpal

3.Mr.Sharad Vasanji

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2

4.HareeshVasanji

1 to 4 having office at No.25,

Thiyagappa Chety Street,

Korukkupet, (Opposite to railway Gage)

Chennai 600 021.

..Respondents/Defendants

O.A.No.982 of 2017:

Original Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to

grant an oder of interim injunction restraining the Respondents/Defendants,

their men, agents and anybody claiming under them from in any way and in

any manner alienating or encumbering the schedule mentioned leasehold

superstructures in the suit property pending disposal of this application.

A.No.6075 of 2017

Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to original

plaint in C.S.No.68 of 1983, since the Respondents/Defendants have

violated the terms and clause 8 of the Compromise Decree dated

09.08.19990 and clause 7 of the Schedule 'B'.

These Applications coming on this day before this court for hearing

the court made the following order:

A.No.6075 of 2017: filed for granting a decree and judgment as

prayed for in the original plaint, since Clause 8 and 9 of the compromise

decree dated 09.08.1990 and Clause 7 of Schedule 'B' has been violated.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3

2. OA.No.982 of 2017: is filed for an injunction restraining the

respondents from alienating or encumbering the schedule mentioned

leasehold superstructure in the suit property pending disposal of this

application.

3. The applicant is the plaintiff in the suit. The Suit CS.No.68 of 1983

was filed in the year 1983 for recovery of possession of the schedule

mentioned property and damages of Rs.84,000/- from April 1981 till date of

plaint and thereafter at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per month till date of delivery

of possession to the plaintiff.

4. The case of the plaintiff is that the trust has been created by one

Pazhaverkadu Venkatasami. The Trust was constituted to perform several

religious and charitable activities and was possessed of several properties.

After the death of the founder-trustee, a scheme was framed for the Trust in

CS.No.221 of 51 as disputes arose between the descendants of the founder

trustee. Under the Scheme, the Trust and its properties were to be managed

by the senior most adult member of the descendents Raju Pillai was the son

of the founder trustee through his first wife who managed the Trust.

Kuppusamy Pillai, the eldest son of Raju Pillai died in the year 1956

without leaving a male issue. Thereafter, the Trust was managed by the

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4

other sons of Raju Pillai. On the date of filing of this Suit, the present

Trustee S. Venkataraman, son of P.R.Srinivasan was in management. The

plaintiff would contend that when he was a minor C.Sathyamurthy was the

Trustee. He had leased out the suit schedule property measuring 98 grounds

at Tondiarpet to the defendant. The said Satyamurthy had acted as guardian

of the present Trustee. The lease was for a period of 25 years with an option

of renewal for three consecutive terms of 25 years each. The plaintiff would

submit that this lease was without the sanction of the committee and beyond

the powers of the trustee. The de