Madras High Court
G.Kumanan vs Kuluppai Ramasamy Chettiar Charitable ... on 9 January, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
C.R.P.No.3482 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09-01-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
C.R.P.No. 3482 of 2024
and
C.M.P.No.18853 of 2024
G.Kumanan
S/o. G. Ganapathy, No.7, South Beach Road,
Devanampattinam, Cuddalore -1.
.... Petitioner
-Versus-
1.Kuluppai Ramasamy Chettiar Charitable Trust
Rep. by its President Padmalatha, D/o.
Subramanian, Trust Office, No.21, Pappa Ammal
Street (Extension), 2nd Cross Street, Kondur,
Cuddalore – 607 006.
2.Poorasamy,
Secretary,
Sanjeevaraman Koil Street,
Pudupalayam, Cuddalore -607 001.
3.Arumugam,
Treasurer,
S/o. Chakrapani Padayachi,
Villiyanallur Road,
Puduchatram, Bhuvanagiri Taluk,
Cuddalore District.
4.Seralathan,
17/7A, Sankara Naidu Street,
Tiruppapuliyur, Cuddalore - 607 002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1 of 15
C.R.P.No.3482 of 2024
5.Mani Chettiar
S/o. Muthukumarasamy Chettiar,
Amirthavazhi Amman Koil Street,
Tiruppapuliyur, Cuddalore – 607 002.
6.V.P.Ramalingam
S/o. Poonambalam,
No.72-74, Perumal Kovil Street,
Puducherry - 605 001.
7.Ramesh Kumar
S/o. Sivakozhunthu, No.72-74,
Perumal Kovil Street,
Puducherry - 605 001.
[Respondents 6 and 7 impleaded vide court order
dated.25.11.2024 made in C.M.P.No.26103 of 2024 in
C.R.P.No.3482 of 2024]
..... Respondents
Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set
aside the judgement an decree dated 09.01.2024 passed in O.S.No.541 of 2003
on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Muthukumar
For Respondent : Mr.V.Balamurugan for R1
Mr.D.Baskar for R3
Mr.R.Natarajan for R4
Mr.D.Ravichander for R5
Mr.Sharath Chandran for
Ms.Gopika Nambiar for RR6 & 7
No Appearance for R2
ORDER
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2 of 15 C.R.P.No.3482 of 2024 This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the decree and judgment dated 09.01.2024 made in O.S.No.541 of 2003 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif at Cuddalore, on the ground that the learned Munsif lacked jurisdiction.
2. The case of the revision petitioner is that one Ramasamy Chettiar owned a vast extent of property. He created a Trust “Kuluppai Ramasamy Chettiar Charties Sabha” by way of a registered Will dated 27.11.1900. The said Trust is for the benefits of the public. The said Trust was looked after by the family members of the donor and lastly one A.Subramanian was in the management of Trust and its properties. The said A.Subramanian filed the suit in O.S.No.541 of 2023 on the file of the Principal District Munsif against one Radhakrishnan seeking permission of the court to sell some of the properties belonging to the Trust. Initially in the plaint all the properties of the Trust were not included, subsequently by way of an amendment application, all the properties were sought to be included which was allowed. The Secretary of the Trust Mr.A.Subramanian had managed to obtain a decree on 09.01.2024 in collusion with Radhakrishnan for selling the properties and sold some of the item of the schedule mentioned properties for inadequate consideration. The https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3 of 15 C.R.P.No.3482 of 2024 action of the defendant and plaintiff had caused a huge loss to the trust and on account of which, the laudable object of the trust could not be achieved. The object of the founder of the trust got defeated by the collusive decree. The revision petitioner, claiming to be one of the descendants of the original donor, has come up with the present civil revision petition.
3. Heard Mr.A.Muthukumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, Mr.V.Balamurugan, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, Mr.D.Baskar, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, Mr. R. Natarajan, learned counsel for the 4th respondent, Mr.D.Ravichander, learned counsel for the 5th respondent; and Mr.Sharath Chandran, learned counsel for Ms.Gopika Nambiar for the respondents 6 and 7.
4. Mr.A.Muthukumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that a suit was instituted before the District Munsif in respect of properties owned by the public charities, and a decree and judgement for the selling of properties were obtained, which is totally against the law. The decree obtained in the suit is nothing but a collusive one. In order to protect the interest of the public charity, the revision petitioner has come with up the present revision petition seeking indulgence of this court for setting aside the collusive decree.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4 of 15 C.R.P.No.3482 of 2024
5. Mr.A.Muthukumar would place much reliance on the judgment of this court in the case of J.Savithri v. Selvaraj, (2023) 6 MLJ 70 in support of his contention that in a collateral proceedings , if it comes to the notice of the High Court that the judgment is contrary to law, the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is empowered to set aside such a decree.
6. Per contra, Mr.Sharath Chandran Mr.V.Balamurugan, Mr.D.Baskar, R.Natarajan, Mr.D.Ravichander and would contend that the District Munsif though lacked jurisdiction over the matter, entertained the suit and passed decree and judgment granting permission to the trustees of a trust to sell the properties owned by the trust. The trustee(s) ought to have filed the suit before the principal civil Court of original jurisdiction where the trust property is located seeking an opinion, advice, or direction on any management or administration questions, yet, merely because the suit was filed in a wrong court, any sale made pursuant to the resolution passed by the trustee(s) cannot be said to be invalid.
7. Mr.Sharath Chandran in support of his above contention would place much reliance on the constitution bench judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chairman Madappa v. M.N.Mahanthadevaru and others, AIR 1966 SC 878 : 1965 SCC OnLine SC 110.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5 of 15 C.R.P.No.3482 of 2024
8. Mr.D.Ravichander would, in addition to his above contention, submit that in respect of subject properties one Mani filed a suit in O.S.No.154 of 2021 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif at Cuddalore, against one Pandiyan and 75 others for a preliminary decree of partition and separate possession of his 1/6th share in the undivided ½ share of Thangavel Chettiar in the suit properties; for mesne profits under Order XX, Rule 12 of CPC. The revision petitioner was arrayed as 8th defendant in the said suit. According to the plaintiff -Mani, the suit properties were his ancestral properties. The entire pleading in the plaint proceeded as if the properties in the suit schedule were his absolute properties. Nowhere in the plaint it was stated that the properties belonged to the trust. The revision petitioner who was made as 8th defendant in the suit filed his written statement contending that the properties mentioned in the suit schedule in O.S.No.154 of 2021 were ancestral properties of the defendants and himself. In fact, it was pleaded in the written statement that certain documents have been created as if the properties belonged to trust. On the contrary, now, it has been pleaded by the revision petitioner as if he espouses the cause of the the trust. The learned counsel would therefore contend that the revision is nothing but an abuse of process of law.
9. I have considered the rival submissions carefully. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6 of 15 C.R.P.No.3482 of 2024
10. No doubt, the revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking indulgence of this court for setting aside the decree dated 09.01.2024 passed in O.S.No.541 of 2003 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif at Cuddalore, mainly on the ground that the properties mentioned in the suit schedule belonging to the trust and that the trust's name is “ Kuluppai Ramasamy Chettiar Charitable Trust”
11. The revision petitioner claims to be a descendent of Ramasamy Chettiar. According to the revision petitioner, one of the trustees who was in the management of the trust had filed the suit in O.S.No.541 of 2003 on the file of the Principal District Munsif at Cuddalore, seeking permission to sell the properties belonging to the trust. Admittedly, the learned Principal District Munsif at Cuddalore where the suit in O.S.No.541 of 2003 was filed lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the specific provision contained in the Indian Trusts Act, 1882. As per Section 34 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882, any trustee of a private trust, may, without instituting a suit, apply by petition to a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction seeking permission to sell the properties belonging to the trust. As far as public charitable trust is concerned Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) allows a suit to be filed in the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction or in any other court empowered by the State Government.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7 of 15 C.R.P.No.3482 of 2024
12. It is not in dispute in the instant case that the trust is a public charitable trust and in that event, Section 92 (f) of CPC will attract to seek the relief. Indisputably, the Principal District Munsif Court at Cuddalore which had decreed the suit in O.S.No.541 of 2003 lacked jurisdiction inherently to grant permission to sell the properties belonging to the trust.
13. In any case, it would be evident from the copy of the decree and judgement in O.S.No.541 of 2003, which is appended to the typed set of documents, that the suit was founded on the trustees' decision to sell the properties. In contrast to his written statement filed in O.S.No.154 of 2021 as the eighth defendant, in which he claimed that the suit properties were his own self-acquired properties, the revision petitioner stated in his plea before this court that he was protecting the rights and interests of the trust and certain documents had been created as if the properties belonging to the trust and in sense, in this revision he espouses the cause of the trust. Thus, the very contrary statement taken out by the revision petitioner would only go to show that now the revision petitioner has colluded with the plaintiff in O.S.No.154 of 2021 and has not come to the court with clean hands but approached this court with an ulterior motive seeking to set aside the decree and judgement dated 09.01.2004 which was passed in O.S.No.541 of 2003 filed at the instance of the trust in order to annul the sales that were made by the trust pursuant to the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8 of 15 C.R.P.No.3482 of 2024 permission of the civil court. There is also a considerable amount of delay to an extent of almost 10 years.
14. Although the Principal District Munsif at Cuddalore lacked jurisdiction to entertain a suit seeking permission to sell trust properties, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the considered view that when the civil revision petitioner has not come to the court with clean hands and it seems that he sought to vindicate his personal interest rather than the public interest, more particularly, the manner in which the revision petitioner took out a different stand in the pending suit over the nature of the properties, it may not be expedient for this court to set aside the decree and judgement dated 09.01.2004 made in O.S.No.541 of 2003 on the file of the Principal District Munsif at Cuddalore in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Constitution of India. Having taken a defence in the suit in O.S.No.154 of 2021 claiming right over the properties as his ancestral properties, it is for the civil revision petitioner to establish the same in the suit pending against him. Mere sale of the properties based on the orders of the court which had no jurisdiction to grant permission to sell, in the considered view of this court such sales cannot be set aside. In this regard, the judgement in the case of relied on by Mr.Sharath Chandran in the case of Chairman Madappa v. M.N.Mahanthadevaru and others, AIR 1966 SC 878 : 1965 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9 of 15 C.R.P.No.3482 of 2024 SCC OnLine SC 110 would be apposite to the facts of the present case wherein, a constitution bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-
“10. We are, however, of opinion that prayer for such a relief though permissible in a suit under Section 92 does not in any way circumscribe or take away from trustees or managers of public trusts the right of ordinary administration of trust-property which would include letting, selling, mortgaging or exchanging such property for the benefit of the trust. We cannot infer from the presence of such a relief being provided in a suit under Section 92(1) that the right of trustees or managers of the trust to carry on the ordinary administration of trust-property is in any way affected thereby. If this were so, it would make administration of trust- property by trustees or managers next to impossible. This will be clear from a few examples which we may give. Suppose there is a lot of odds and ends accumulated and the trustees or managers of a public trust want to dispose of those odds and ends if they are of no use to the trust. If the interpretation suggested on behalf of the appellant is accepted, the trustees or managers could not sell even such odds and ends without filing a suit for authorising them to sell such movable property. Obviously this could not have been the intention behind clause (f) in Section 92(1). Take another case where the public trust has a good deal of land and arranges to cultivate it itself and gets crops every half year. If the produce is not all required for the trust and has to be sold, the presence of clause
(f) in Section 92(1) does not require that every half year a suit should be filed by trustees or managers with the permission of the Advocate-General to sell such crop. The absurdity of the argument on behalf of the appellant based on clause (f) of Section 92(1) is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10 of 15 C.R.P.No.3482 of 2024 therefore obvious and that clause does not in our opinion have the effect of circumscribing the powers of trustees or managers to carry on ordinary administration of trust-property and to deal with it in such manner as they think best for the benefit of the trust and if necessary even to let, sell, mortgage or exchange it. It seems that clause (f) was put in inter alia to give power to court to permit lease, sale, mortgage or exchange of property where, for example, there may be a prohibition in this regard in the trust deed relating to a public trust. There may be other situations where it may be necessary to alienate trust property which might require court's sanction and that is why there is such a provision in clause (f) in Section 92(1). But that clause in our opinion was not meant to limit in any way the power of trustees or managers to manage the trust- property to the best advantage of the trust and in its interest, and if necessary, even to let, sell, mortgage or exchange such property. Further if clause (f) cannot be read to limit the powers of trustees or managers to manage the trust-property in the interest of the trust and to deal with it in such manner as would be to the best advantage of the trust, there can be no bar to a provision being made in a scheme for directions by the court in that behalf. If anything, such a provision would be in the interest of the trust, for the court would not give directions to let, sell, mortgage or exchange the trust property or any part thereof unless it was clearly in the interest of the trust. Such a direction can certainly be sought by the trustees or managers or even by one manager out of two if they cannot agree, and there is nothing in clause (f) in our opinion which militates against the provision in the scheme for obtaining such direction. We may add that we say nothing about obtaining of such directions by persons other than managers or trustees, for this is not a case where the direction was sought by a person other than https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11 of 15 C.R.P.No.3482 of 2024 a co-manager. Whether such a direction can be sought by persons other than trustees or managers or one of two managers as provided in paras. (11) and (12) of the scheme is a matter which does not arise for consideration in the present case and we express no opinion thereon. We are dealing with a case where the prayer is made by one trustee and the order passed thereon relates to matters which are incidental to acts of management of the trust- property and we have no doubt that clause (f) in Section 92(1) cannot be read in such a way as to hamper the ordinary administration of trust-properties by trustees or managers thereof; and if that is so, there can be no invalidity in a provision in the scheme which directs the trustees or managers or, even one out of two co-managers when they cannot agree to obtain directions of the court with respect to the disposal or alienation of the property belonging to the trust. We are therefore of opinion that clause (f) does not apply to the circumstances of this case and no suit under Section 92 was necessary in consequence. The Additional District Judge had jurisdiction to give directions which he did under paras. (11) and (12) of the scheme, as these directions are of the nature of ordinary administration of trust-property and do not fall within clause
(f) in Section 92(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure.”
15. The dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chairman Madappa 's case [cited supra] squarely applies to the facts of the present case where there was a resolution passed by the trust to sell its properties and even though the learned Principal District Munsif lacked jurisdiction to grant permission to sell the trust properties, yet, the sales made pursuant to the resolution by the trust, cannot be held to be invalid and also the fact that the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12 of 15 C.R.P.No.3482 of 2024 revision petitioner has come to the court with unclean hands, and he has come to the court with the present revision only to vindicate his personal rights with some ulterior hidden motive, he is not entitled to any relief in the revision.
16. In the light of the above discussion, this court finds no merit in the revision and the same must fail.
In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No cost. Consequently, CMP is closed.
Index : yes / no 09-01-2025
Neutral Citation : yes / no
kmk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13 of 15
C.R.P.No.3482 of 2024
To
1.The Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 14 of 15 C.R.P.No.3482 of 2024 N.SATHISH KUMAR.J., kmk C.R.P.No.3482 of 2024
09..01..2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 15 of 15