Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 77093
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.Jothiraman, J
N.Jayakumar – Appellant
Versus
M/s.Venkateswara Aranilaya Trust – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition|CRP.No.1714 of 2025|Civil Miscellaneous Petition|CMP.No.9898 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.R.Bharathkumar
For the Respondents: Ms.R.Muthu Srinithi, for R1
Mrs.R.Anitha, Special Government Pleader for R2
Power of Attorney holders are valid representatives in litigation, subject to specific legal frameworks; trustees can delegate tasks under certain conditions.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order III, Rule 2 - Application for conducting suit by Power of Attorney holder - Challenged on grounds of authority - Court allowed application based on absence of bars to delegation under CPC, recognizing legal standing of Power of Attorney holder. (Paras 8 and 9)
(B) Delegation of Trusteeship - Requirements for delegation of trustee duties discussed - Necessity of trust deed provisions or resolutions emphasized. (Paras 4.2 and 4.5)
Facts of the case:
This Civil Revision Petition arises from the order allowing a Power of Attorney holder to conduct a suit filed by the Trust against certain defendants regarding ownership and injunction related to a property covered under a Partition Deed, challenged by defendants on grounds of improper delegation.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the Power of Attorney's validity; no bar in allowing delegates of the Managing Trustee to conduct the case under CPC provisions.
Issues: Whether the managing trustee's delegation of authority without a trust deed provision or board resolution is valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Power of Attorney holder can validly conduct the suit for the Trust, emphasizing the permissive nature of delegation under Civil Procedure Code.
Result: Civil Revision Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. suit regarding property ownership and trustee's authority. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. trustee's ability to delegate powers questioned. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court’s assessment of validity of power of attorney. (Para 6 , 7 , 9) |
ORDER
The order under challenge is to the order dated 27.01.2025 made in I.A.No.8 of 2024 in O.S.No.227 of 2021, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sulur.
2. The suit was filed by M/s.Sri Venkateswara Aranilaya Trust, represented by its Managing Director, Sulochana Guruswamy, against one N.Jayakumar / 1st defendant, N.Vijayakumar / 2nd defendant, N.Ramkumar/ 3rd defendant and the Sub Registrar, Sulur / 4th defendant, seeking the relief of Declaration that the suit schedule property absolutely belong to the plaintiff and for permanent injunction against the 4th defendant from registering any document in respect of the suit property and for permanent injunction against the defendants 1 to 3 not to alienate / encumber the portion of the suit schedule property covered under the Partition Deed dated 30.03.1998.
3. The 1st defendant has filed a written statement and the defendants 1 and 2 adopted the same. In the meanwhile, one Venkatramachandran @ Ramachandran has filed an application under Order III Rule 2 CPC in I.A.No.8 of 2024 in O.S.No.227 of 2021, permitting him to conduct the suit on behalf of the plaintiff. M/s.Venkateswara Aranilaya Trust, represented by its Managing Trustee, Sulochana Guruswamy, as her Power of Attorney Agent. The contesting defendants 1 to 3 have filed their objections in the said application. Upon considering the arguments advanced on either side, the Court below has allowed the petition on 27.01.2025 on the ground that under Order III Rule 2 CPC , there is no specific provision restraining the trustees to appoint an Power Agent to contest the Suit. If any contention raised by the contesting defendants, they are at liberty to adjudicate the same during trial. Being aggrieved over the same, the defendants 1 to 3 have preferred this instant revision petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made the following contentions:
4.1. The Court below has committed an error in allowing the application in I.A.No.8 of 2024, filed under Order III Rule 2 CPC by the plaintiff in a suit, in the capacity of Trustee of the Public Charitable Trust.
4.2. A trustee cannot delegate his office or any of his duties either to a co-trustee or to a stranger, unless (a) the instrument of trust so provides, or (b) the delegation is in the regular course of business or (c) the delegation is necessary or (d) the beneficiary being competent to contract, consents to the delegation.
4.3. Even if the trustee wants to delegate his officer or any of his duties either to a co-trustee or to a stranger, then there should be resolution passed by the Board of Trustees to that effect.
4.4. In the absence of a Trust Deed empowering the Managing Trustee to delegate her powers to a stranger and a Trust Board Resolution authorizing a stranger to act as an agent.
4.5. In respect of public trust, only the Trustees who figure in the proceedings can conduct the proceedings and the Managing Trustee cannot avoid the witness box.
4.6. The Court below has failed to consider that mere Power of Attorney is improper in the matter of Public Trust and the lack of authorization and competence of the agent goes to the root of the issue.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the present Civil Revision Petition has become infructuous since the said Venkataramachandran @ Ramachandran subsequently has been appointed as the Managing Trustee of the plaintiff trust, vide Doc.No.12/25 on the file of the Sub Registrar Office, Sulur. The Civil Revision Petition has become infructuous due to the deponents appointed as the duly constituted Managing Director. The said Venkataramachandran @ Ramachandran is the son of the said Sulochana Gurusamy, who is the former Managing Trust of the plaintiff's
