Mrs.Arti Meenakshi Muthiah vs Kamla Town Trust) on 27 February, 2014

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Mrs.Arti Meenakshi Muthiah vs Kamla Town Trust) on 27 February, 2014

Bench: G.M. Akbar Ali

IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 27 . 02.2014

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.M. AKBAR ALI

C.S.Nos.598 and 603 of 2013

1.Mrs.Arti Meenakshi Muthiah
2.Mrs.Kamala Muthiah
3.Tarun Ghai ..... Plaintiffs 1 to 3 in both the suits
4.Mrs.Nandini Valli Muthiah ..... 4th Plaintiff in C.S.No.598 of 2013
...

5. Sir M.Ct.Muthiah Chettiar Higher
Secondary School, Trust represented
by its President and having its Office
at No.23, Dr.Raja Annamalai Road,
Purasawalkam, Chennai-84

... 5th plaintiff in C.S.No.598/2013

Lady M.Ct.Muthiah Chettiar Girls Higher
Secondary School Trust, represented by
its President, and having its office at
No.13/14, Dr. Alagappa Road,
Purasawalkam, Chennai-600 084
.. 4th plaintiff in C.S.No,603/2013

C.S.No.598 of 2013

Suit filed to permit the plaintiffs to amend the Trust Deed dated 29.1.1930 registered as Document No.241 of 1930 in the Sub Registrar's Office, West Madras, of the 5th plaintiff Trust, namely, Sir M.Ct.Muthiah Chettiar's High School Trust, also known as, Sir M.Ct.Muthiah Chettiar Higher Secondary School Trust as stated in the Declaration of Amended and Restated Deed of Trust filed herewith as Appendex-A and Settle a Scheme in terms of the declaration of Amended and Restated Deed of Trust filed herewith as Appendix-A for more effectively carrying on the objects and purposes of the 5th plaintiff Trust, namely, Sir M.Ct.Muthiah Chettiar's High School Trust, also known as Sir M.Ct.Muthiah Chettiar Higher Secondary School Trust.

C.S.No.603/2013

Permit the plaintiffs herein to amend the Trust Deed dated 31.1.1945 of the 4th plaintiff trust, namely, Lady M.Ct.Muthiah Chettiar Girls Higher Secondary School Trust as stated in the Declaration of Amended and Restated Deed of Trust filed herewith as Appendix-A and Settle a Scheme in terms of the Declaration of Amended and Restated Deed of Trust filed herewith as Appendix-A for more effectively carrying on the objects and purposes of the 4th plaintiff Trust, namely, Lady M.Ct. Muthiah Chettiar Girls Higher Secondary School Trust.

For plaintiffs : Mr.P.J. George

COMMON JUDGMENT

C.S.No.598 of 2013 Suit filed to permit the plaintiffs to amend the Trust Deed dated 29.1.1930 registered as Document No.241 of 1930 in the Sub Registrar's Office, West Madras, of the 5th plaintiff Trust, namely, Sir M.Ct.Muthiah Chettiar's High School Trust, also known as, Sir M.Ct.Muthiah Chettiar Higher Secondary School Trust as stated in the Declaration of Amended and Restated Deed of Trust filed herewith as Appendex-A and Settle a Scheme in terms of the declaration of Amended and Restated Deed of Trust filed herewith as Appendix-A for more effectively carrying on the objects and purposes of the 5th plaintiff Trust, namely, Sir M.Ct.Muthiah Chettiar's High School Trust, also known as Sir M.Ct.Muthiah Chettiar Higher Secondary School Trust.

C.S.No.603/2013

2. Both the plaints have been filed under Sec.92 r/w Order VII Rule 1 of CPC and Order IV Rule 1 of Madras High Court Original Side Rules. Since both the suits are filed by the same parties, but for two different Trusts viz., Sir.M.Ct muthiah Chettiar Higher secondary school trust and Lady M.Ct Muthiar Girls Trust, they are disposed of by a common judgment.

3. Sir.M.Ct.Muthiah Chettiar trust(hereinafter referred to Sir Muthiah Chettiar Trust), was established in the year 1930, the other Trust ( hereinafter referred as Lady.Mct.Muthiah Chettiar Trust) was established in the year 1945. The founder Trustee was MC.T.M. Chidambaram Chettiar, (late Lady Deivanai Achi). Both the trusts are running Higher secondary schools as the name represents for more than 8 decades. The object and purpose of the Trust was to impart education to the schooling population of the neighbourhood of Purasawalkam at Chennai. The Trusts are holding immoveable properties and the Educational institutions are established and the objectives are carried out as per the letter and spirit of the Trust. The trust deeds dated 29.1.1930 and 31.1.1945 contain sufficiently explicit provisions to cover all aspects of management and administration of the Trust. However certain aspects of investment of the surplus are not specified in the earlier trust deeds. Certain provisions of the Income Tax Act 1961 has to be applied which were not contemplated eight decades ago. In order to overcome the difficulties, the present Trustees have resolved on 27.6.2013 to amend the said Trust deeds to the best advantage of the Trusts and interest. Therefore the suits are filed for the amendment of the Respective Trust Deeds by way of a decree of this court.

4. Since the suits themselves are filed under sec.92 of Civil Procedure Code which governs Public Trust, there is no contentious parties to the proceedings. Necessary notice was issued by publication in a vernacular Tamil daily and English daily on 3.10.2013. There is no objection whatsoever to the proceedings.

5. Evidence were recorded separately in both the suits and one of the Trustees was examined as P.W.1.

6. In C.S.No.598 of 2013 Exs.P.1 to P.10 were marked and C.S.No.603 of 2013 Exs.P.1 to P.5 were marked. P.W.1 would state the object of the Trusts and the circumstances under which the amendment of the trust deeds are necessitated.

7. Heard Mr. P.J. George, learned counsel for the plaintiff. He pointed out that the plaintiffs Trusts are Public and Charitable Trust with the object of imparting education and they have established the above two schools. The learned counsel submitted that the earlier trust deeds were of the year 1930 and 1945 and the recitals therein are not explicit enough to suit present time development in law and procedure and more particularly, in applying the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The learned counsel pointed out that the present amendments are not contradictory to the earlier object of the Trust and not opposed to public policy also. The learned counsel also traversed through some of the amendments which are annexed along with the plaint.

8. Heard and perused the materials available on record.

9. Sec.92 reads as follows

92. Public charities.

(1) In the case of any alleged breach of any express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature, or where the direction of the Court is deemed necessary for the administration of any such trust, the Advocate-General, or two or more persons having an interest in the trust and having obtained the 1[leave of the Court] may institute a suit, whether contentious or not, in the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction or in any other Court empowered in that behalf by the State Government within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the subject-matter of the trust is situate to obtain a Aectee,

(a) removing any trustee;

(b) appointing a new trustee;

(c) vesting any property in a trustee;

(cc) directing a trustee who has been removed or a person who has ceased to be a trustee, to deliver possession of any trust property in his possession to the person entitled to the possession of such property;

(d) directing accounts and inquires;

(e) declaring what proportion of the trust property or of the interest therein shall be allocated to any particular object of the trust;

(f) authorizing the whole or any part of the trust property to be let, sold, mortgaged or exchanged;

(g) settling a scheme; or

(h) granting such further or other relief as the nature of the case may require.

(2) Save as provided by the Religious Endowments Act, 1863 (20 of 1863) or by any corresponding law in force in the territories which, immediately before the 1st November, 1956, were comprised in Part B States, no suit claiming any of the reliefs specified in sub-section (1) shall be instituted in respect of any such trust as is therein referred to except in conformity with provisions of that sub-section.

2[(3) The Court may alter the original purposes of an express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature and allow the property or income of such trust or any portion thereof to be applied cy pres in one or more the following circumstances, namely :

(a) where the original purposes of the trust, in whole or in part,

(i) have been, as far as may be, fulfilled; or

(ii) cannot be carried out at all, or cannot be carried out according to the directions given in the instrument creating the trust or, where there is no such instrument, according to the spirit of the trust;

(b) where the original purposes of the trust provide a use for a part only of the property available by virtue of the trust; or

(c) where the property available by virtue of the trust and other property applicable for similar purposes can be more effectively used in conjunction with, and to that end can suitably be made applicable to any other purpose, regard being had to the spirit of the trust and its applicability to common purposes; or

(d) where the original purposes, in whole or in part, were laid down by reference to an area which then was, but has since ceased to be, a unit for such purposes; or

(ii) ceased, as being useless or harmful to the community, or

(iii) ceased to be, in law, charitable, or

(iv) ceased in any other way to provide a suitable and effective method of using the property available by virtue of the trust, regard being had to the spirit of the trust.]

10. In AIR 1996 SC 620 (Commissioner of Income Tax vs Kamla Town Trust), the Supreme court has considered amendment of the trust deed and held as follows:

Civil court has jurisdiction to amend or rectify the trust deeds.

11. Therefore, this court has jurisdiction and power to amend the Trust deeds under Sec.92 of CPC. The evidence of one of the Trustees and also the perusal of the proposed amendment would show that the proposed amendments are not contradictory to the object of the earlier trust deeds and only supplemental and also not opposed to public policy. Hence this court is of the view, the Trust deeds have to be amended as prayed for and the scheme has to be settled as enumerated.

12. In the result,

(a) Civil Suit in C.S.No.598 of 2013 is allowed.

(b) Civil Suit in C.S.No.603 of 2013 is allowed.

(d) The Annexure-A attached to the plaints 	        forms part of the decree. 
No costs. 

						       -02-2014

sr
Index:yes
website:yes
					

								    G.M. AKBAR ALI,J.,

					
						               sr










						Pre-Delivery Common 									Judgment in C.S.Nos.598 									and 603  of 2013










					


						  			27-02-2014

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court