The court established that a charitable trust must demonstrate legitimacy and appropriate representation for legal proceedings to continue.

ORDER

Aggrieved by the dismissal Order dated April 10, 2018 passed in I.A.No.871 of 2017 in O.S.No.192 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tambaram, the petitioner / plaintiff therein has preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

2. During the pendency of this Civil Revision Petition, the first respondent / first defendant passed away and hence, his legal heirs were impleaded as Respondent Nos.5 to 7 vide Order of this Court dated August 2, 2024 made in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.10440 of 2024.

3. Despite sufficient service, Respondent Nos.2, 5 to 7, did not come forward to contest this Civil Revision Petition. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 said to be sub-tenants of first respondent were given up in this Civil Revision Petition as the Original Suit was dismissed qua them.

4. The case of the revision petitioner / plaintiff in the Original Suit is that the suit property and some other properties were originally owned by Thyagi Kundrathur A.Nagalinga Mudhaliar, who let out the suit property to the first respondent / first defendant in 1983 for a monthy rent of Rs.300/-. The original owner - Thyagi Kundrathur A.Nagalinga Mudhaliar passed away in March 16, 1989. His wife - Mrs.Sankariammal had predeceased him. The couple had an adopted daughter - K.N.Nirmala. After the demise of Thyagi Kundrathur A.Nagalinga Mudhaliar, K.N.Nirmala along with her father's friends, created the petitioner / plaintiff trust - M/s.Thyagi Kundrathur Nagalingam and Sankariammal Charitable Trust vide Registered Trust Deed dated January 11, 1990. Subsequent to demise of Thyagi Kundrathur A.Nagalinga Mudhaliar, the first respondent was paying rent to the plaintiff trust for some time and thereafter defaulted. Hence, the trust being a public charitable trust, is represented by its Managing Trustee - J.Paulraj filed the Original Suit seeking delivery of vacant possession of the suit property. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 / Defendants 2 to 4 are subtenants under first respondent / first defendant and hence, they are impleaded as parties.

5. That being the case of the petitioner / plaintiff in the Original Suit, the case of the first respondent / first defendant in the Suit is that there is no such trust in existence as alleged and the petitioner/plaintiff trust is self-styled and self-made for the unlawful enrichment. It was denied that J.Paulraj was the Managing Trustee of the trust and contended that he had no locus standi to file the Suit. Thyagi Kundrathur A.Nagalinga Mudhaliar's alleged title over the suit property was denied. The alleged founder of the trust, namely K.N.Nirmala, has no right to settle the suit property in favour of trust as she is not a legal descendant/legal heir of Thyagi Kundrathur A.Nagalinga Mudhaliar. K.N.Nirmala was a mere tenant in a portion of his property and not his adopted daughter. J.Paulraj is himself a trespasser into the suit property and is in illegal possession of a portion of suit property. The suit property is standing in the name of one Mr.Manickam till date. Stating so, the first respondent / first defendant sought to dismiss the Original Suit.

6. After the commencement of trial, during the defendants' side evidence, J.Paulraj passed away on September 12, 2017. According to the petitioner / plaintiff trust, it passed a resolution dated October 14, 2017 and authorised Mr.K.Veerakumar to conduct the case on behalf of the petitioner / plaintiff trust. Based on the alleged resolution, the petitioner / plaintiff filed a petition under Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , which was numbered as I.A.No.871 of 2017 seeking permission to conduct the cas