Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 43443
MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K.NATARAJAN – Appellant
Versus
M.VR.Mela Oorani Trust, Mela Oorani Road, Karaikudi,Represented by its Managing Trustees, – Respondent
SA(MD) 556 2023
The provisions of the Indian Trust Act, including the requirement for registration of trusts in relation to immovable property, must be interpreted in a manner that prevents fraud and protects the rights of beneficiaries.
Headnote:
TRUST - VALIDITY - REGISTRATION - SECTION 5 OF INDIAN TRUST ACT - APPLICABILITY - FRAUD - EXCEPTION - EVIDENCE - ORAL AND DOCUMENTARY - RELIABILITY - XEROX COPY - ADMISSIBILITY - TRUSTEES - AUTHORITY - SECTIONS 36 AND 48 OF INDIAN TRUST ACT - INTERPRETATION - SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW - FORMULATION - REQUIREMENTS - DISMISSAL OF SECOND APPEAL.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff Trust and also for recovery of possession. The defendant/appellant claimed that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property for more than 40 years.
Finding of the Court:
The first appellate Court on re-appreciation of the evidence found that Ex.A2 to Ex.A10, Ex.A13 and Ex.A14 had clearly established the title of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property, whereas the defendant had failed to produce any single document in support of the claim in the suit property.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 5 of the Indian Trust Act applies to the plaintiff trust, which was established 200 years back?2. Whether Ex.A15, a xerox copy of the resolution empowering the plaintiff to file the suit, is reliable and admissible in evidence?3. Whether the filing of the suit by the plaintiff alone is valid in light of Sections 36 and 48 of the Indian Trust Act?4. Whether the first appellate Court erred in its findings and whether there is a substantial question of law that warrants interference by the High Court?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 5 of the Indian Trust Act, which requires trusts in relation to immovable property to be declared by a non-testamentary instrument in writing and registered, does not apply to trusts established before the Act came into force in 1882.2. Even if Section 5 were applicable, it does not apply where it would operate so as to effectuate a fraud. In this case, the defendant obtained a patta for the suit property by fraudulent means, which was subsequently cancelled.3. Ex.A15, a xerox copy of the resolution empowering the plaintiff to file the suit, is admissible in evidence as the defendant failed to object to its marking at the time it was produced.4. Sections 36 and 48 of the Indian Trust Act, which deal with the general authority of trustees and the requirement for co-trustees to act jointly, do not bar the plaintiff from filing the suit alone in this case, as Ex.A15 specifically empowers the plaintiff to do so.5. The first appellate Court's findings are based on a proper appreciation of the evidence and do not raise any substantial question of law that warrants interference by the High Court.
Final Decision: The second appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment of the first appellate Court. No costs are awarded.
S.A(MD)No.556 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 11.12.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN
S.A(MD)No.556 of 2023
and
C.M.P(MD) No.13155 of 2023
K.Natarajan
...Appellant
-Vs-
M.VR.Mela Oorani Trust,
Mela Oorani Road, Karaikudi,
Represented by its Managing Trustees
L.Murugappan
and
SP.Subramananian
... Respondent
PRAYER
: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, to call for the records relating to the judgment and decree dated
29.06.2022 in A.S.No.51 of 2018 on the file of learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track
Mahila Court, Sivagangai, reversing the judgment and decree dated 24.09.2018 in
O.S.No.41 of 2017 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Devakottai and set aside
the same and allow the present second appeal.
1/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.556 of 2023
For Appellant
: Mr.K.Saravanan
For Respondent
: Mr.H.Arumugam
for Mr.S.V.Sankar
JUDGMENT
This second appeal is filed challenging the judgment in A.S.No.51 of 2018
on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Sivagangai,
reversing the judgment in O.S.No.41 of 2017 on the file of the learned
Subordinate Judge, Devakottai.
2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.41 of 2017 on the file of
the Trial Court, seeking the relief of declaration that the suit property belongs to
the plaintiff Trust and also for recovery of possession. The case of the
respondent/plaintiff in brief is that the suit property was a ryotwari land in Town
Survey No.83, Patta No.1443 at Karaikudi Town. The plaintiff trust is a private
trust for charitable purposes formed by two families of Karaikudi Nagarathars,
namely, one Meiyappa Chettiyar and Veerappa Chettiyar before 200 years back.
The trust was in their names of the first letter. The trust was not registered.
Among the legal heirs of the two families, the married male members will become
2/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.556 of 2023
the members of the trust. Every year, the Managing Trustees will be elected by all
the trustees. Out of the quorum present, the trust will elect the Managing Trustees.
The Managing Trustees have the power of administration and maintenance of
account of the trust including the power to sue and to defend the suit on behalf of
the trust and its properties. L.Murugappan and SP.Subramanian were elected as
Managing trustees through the resolution dated 26.05.2016. There are several
properties under the administration and management of the trust. One of the trust
properties is the suit property. Some of the properties possessed and enjoyed by
the trust have been taken over by the Government as per Tamilnadu Inam
Abolition Act, 1963. In a subsequent claim made by the trust, enquiry was
conduced by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Sivaganga and by his proceedings,
it was again given to the plaintiff trust. The defendant / appellant was not a tenant
of the plaintiff trust. By creating the fraudulent conveyance for the superstructure
on the suit properties through misrepresentation, patta was obtained from the
Assistant Settlement Officer, Chennai, named Muthukrishnan, in respect of the
suit property in the year 1995. It came to the knowledge of the
plaintiff in September 2006. The plaintiff trust gave a petition dated 12.09.2006
to cancel the patta to the Devakottai, Revenue Divisional Officer. After hearing
3/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.556 of 2023
both sides, the Revenue Divisional Officer cancelled the patta by his order dated
30.08.2007 in PA.MU.A1/7920/2006. Taking advantage of the earlier patta, the
defendant trespassed into the suit property in April 2007 and claimed that he is in
possession and enjoyment of the suit property. A police complaint was given.
The defendants approached the High Court against the order of RDO, Deva
