Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 59516
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, M.JOTHIRAMAN, JJ
N.AR.Thangavel – Appellant
Versus
N.Vasantha Rajan – Respondent
A.S.(MD)No.115 of 2018 | A.S.(MD)No.123 of 2018 | O.S.No.6 of 2013 | O.S.No.39 of 2010
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Natarajan, Senior Counsel, for M/s.Vijayakumari Natarajan
For the Respondents: Mr.S.Parthasarathy
The suit challenging the trusteeship of a public trust must comply with Section 92 of the CPC and cannot proceed without proper legal standing of the claimant.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 41 Rule 1 & Section 96 - Indian Trust Act, 1882 - Trust matters - Appeals against the dismissal of suits regarding validity of appointment of trustees - Court held that the suit by plaintiff was not maintainable without invoking Section 92 of CPC for public trust - Validity of trusteeship was determined based on trust deed stipulations and facts of plaintiff's resignation - Appeals dismissed. (Paras 40, 2, 13, 36, 22)
(B) Public Trust - The provisions of the Indian Trust Act are not applicable to public trusts, as reiterated in previous judgments. (Paras 22, 34)
Facts of the case:
The disputes arose out of the appointment and legitimacy of trustees of the “Shri Arumugam Pillai Seethai Ammal Trust,” established by plaintiff's father. The plaintiff contested the appointment of trustees and sought declarations in two separate suits, which were subsequently dismissed by the trial court. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The appellate court upheld the trial court's findings, confirming the dismissal of the suits as the plaintiff was not a valid trustee and did not have the necessary standing. (Paras 40, 9)
Issues: Key issues included whether the plaintiff was wrongfully removed from trusteeship and if his resignation was valid. Whether the suit should have been filed under Section 92 of CPC was also significant. (Paras 6, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the plaintiff's claims were barred as he failed to properly assert his rights as required under Section 92 and did not substantiate his arguments relating to the trust deed’s conditions on trusteeship and appointment. (Paras 19, 20)
Result: Appeals dismissed, confirming the lower court's judgment and decree. (Para 40)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of appeals and lawsuits. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. plaintiff's claim against trusteeship. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. framing and evidence of issues. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 4. procedure for additional evidence in appeals. (Para 10 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. appellant's argument regarding trusteeship. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. nature of the trust and indian trust act. (Para 18 , 21 , 22) |
| 7. family arrangements and trusteeship. (Para 23) |
| 8. resignation and appointment of trustees. (Para 26 , 29 , 30) |
| 9. applicability of section 92 cpc. (Para 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 10. conclusion and dismissal of appeals. (Para 38 , 39) |
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by M.JOTHIRAMAN J.
Unsuccessful plaintiff / Thangavel has preferred an appeal in A.S. (MD)No.115 of 2018 as against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.6 of 2013. He has preferred an another appeal in A.S.(MD)No. 123 of 2018 as against the judgement and decree passed in O.S.No.39 of 2010. By a common decree and judgment dated 20.07.2017, both suits came to be dismissed. For the shake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.
2.Brief case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.6 of 2013 is as follows:-
The suit has been filed for declaration that the defendants 2 & 3 are not validly appointed trustees and for consequential permanent injunction. The plaintiff's father one Arumugam created a Trust in the name of “Shri Arumugam Pillai Seethai Ammal Trust” under registered trust deed dated 12.03.1966. He has nominated himself, his wife and his son Nagarajan as trustees. The object of the trust is to run Educational Institutions, to construct hospitals, maternity house, orphanage for poor children, old age home and various other charities for poor people and performance of some pooja to temples. He has constructed a College in the name of Arumugam Seethai Ammal College. He died in the year 1989. His wife pre-deceased him in the year1985. Soon after, the plaintiff and fourth defendant succeeded as trustees. The plaintiff and his deceased brother Nagarajan as trustees have been looking after the trust properties. In the year 1997, among family members an arrangement was made and in that process, the first defendant's father Nagarajan agreed to pay Rs.40,00,000/- to the plaintiff for construction of house and also to pay a sum of Rs.28,45,000/- for the difference in value of the properties. The plaintiff was forced to give resignation letter dated 30.07.1998. Even after a year or two, the amount was not paid. Thereafter, the plaintiff withdrew his resignation given on 30.07.1998, vide letter dated 27.10.2000. The first defendant's father Nagarajan died in the year 2004. As per trust deed, the eldest son of Nagarajan has to succeed as trustee. Accordingly, the first defendant had become trustee. As the first defendant started preventing the plaintiff from acted as trustee, the plaintiff had filed a suit in O.S.No.39 of 2010. The first defendant arbitrarily and unilaterally appointed his brother as one of the trustee, contrary to the trust deed. The first defendant nominated another brother, N.Arumugaranan as another trustee. As per trust deed only one member in a family alone should be the trustee of that family, whereas, the defendants 1 to 3 belonging to the same family, which is violation of wishes of the founder of the trust. The defendants 2 & 3 are not legally and validly appointed as trustees. Hence, the suit.
3.Brief case of the first defendant in O.S.No.6 of 2013 is as follows:-
The paternal grandfather of this defendant was one Arumugampillai. Consequent on the demise of Arumugam Pillai and Seethaiammal, new trustees was reconstituted. Because of the non- cooperation of the plaintiff, the trust could not be performed effectively. Therefore, in or about 1997 there was a partition in the family. The amounts payable as per the terms of the partition deed had no connection at all to the trust. The plaintiff had been to the Foreign Country, Malaysia and he had to stay there
