Madras High Court
Thirugnanasambandam vs Gnanamuthammal Trust on 22 December, 2020
Author: P. Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
C.S.No.698 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 25.11.2017
PRONOUNCED ON : 22.12.2020
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
C.S.No.698 of 2008
1.Thirugnanasambandam
2.Kovilpichai
3.M.Venkatachalapathy
4.N.M.Mani
5.M.Udayaselvam .. Plaintiffs
Vs.
1.Gnanamuthammal Trust,
295, Thambu Chetty Street,
Chennai - 600 001.
2.Mrs.Rajamanickam
3.Vellayya Dhurai
4.Sivaraja .. Defendants
PRAYER : Civil suit is filed under Order IV Rule 1 of OS Rules
r/w. Order VII, Rule 1 of CPC 1908 :-
(a) To grant leave to the plaintiffs to file the suit under Section 92
CPC;
(b) Settle a Scheme for the administration of Gnanamuthammal
Page No.1/71
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.698 of 2008
Trust;
(c) Appoint Trustee or Trustees to administer the
Gnanamuthammal Trust properties and vest the properties in the Trustees
so appointed.
(d) Award the cost of the suit and
(e) grant such further or other reliefs.
For Plaintiffs : Mr.V.Selvaraj
For Defendants : Mr.K.Prabhakaran for D2
Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan
Senior Counsel
For M/s.A.L.Ganthimathi for D3 & D4
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs have instituted the suit against the defendants for the following reliefs:
(i) To grant of leave to the plaintiffs to file the suit under Section 92 CPC;
(ii) Settle a scheme for the administration of Gnanamuthammal Trust;
(iii) Appoint Trustee or Trustees to administer the Gnanamuthammal Trust properties and vest the properties in the Trustees so appointed and for costs.
Page No.2/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008
2. The brief facts of the plaint are as follows:-
2.1 The case of the plaintiffs is that Gnanamuthammal Trust is a Public Charitable Trust. In C.S.No.724 of 1990 filed by Late Janaki Ammal, the then Hereditary Trustee of the Trust, sought permission of this Court to sell one of the properties of the Trust in Linghi Chetty Street, Chennai. In the said suit, it is stated that the Trust came into existence in 1749 and that the properties of the Trust comprised of properties at Kaladipet, Thiruvetriyoor and at Linghi Chetty Street, Chennai - 600 001. By an order dated 20.09.1990, this Court in C.S.No.724 of 1990, permitted Late P.Janaki Ammal to sell one of the properties of the Trust viz., the building bearing Door No.195, Linghi Chetty Street, Chennai to one Mrs.Pauline Mary for a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- and further directed the investment of the entire sum of Rs.5,25,000/- in the Syndicate Bank, Mount Road Branch.
2.2. It is further stated in the plaint that Late Janaki Ammal died on 03.11.1990. Thereafter, O.P.No.627 of 1990 was filed by Mrs.G.Rajamanickam under Sections 232 and 276 of Indian Succession Act claiming that by a Will dated 25.11.1983 two properties belonging to Page No.3/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 Late Janaki Ammal in George Town, Chennai were bequeathed to Mrs.G.Rajamanickam and Letters of Administration was also granted by this Court. The Plaintiffs are the tenants in occupation of the property of the Trust at Kaladipet, Thiruvetriyoor and they have been paying ground rent to the Trust till the death of Janaki Ammal.
2.3. It is further averred in the plaint that after the death of Janaki Ammal, there is none to receive the rent and there are about 100 tenants in occupation of the Trust property at Kaladipet. Similarly, the sum of Rs.5,25,000/- deposited in Syndicate Bank, Mount Road Branch also belongs to the Trust and there is none to receive the rent and to administer the Trust property. Mrs.G.Rajamanickam, has denounced the Trust and is now trying to sell the Trust property treating the same as inherited by her. O.P.No.627 of 1990 filed by Mrs.G.Rajamanickam, it is clear that Janaki Ammal executed a Will dated 25.11.1983 bequesting two immovable properties belonging to her in George Town, Chennai to Mrs.G.Rajamanicakm. Mrs.G.Rajamanickam is described as foster daughter of Late Janaki Ammal. As far as the Trust property is concerned late Janaki Ammal has not nominated any one to succeed her. None has Page No.4/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 made any claim to administer the Trust property as hereditary heir.
2.4. It is further stated in the plaint that O.S.No.186 of 2001 was filed by Bharathi Kudisai Valvoor Sangam against the defendants 2, 3 and 4 on the file of District Munsif Court, Thiruvetriyoor alleging that defendants 2 to 4 have been attempting to convert the Trust property as private property of the second defendant. In the said suit, defendants 2, 3 and 4 have filed a statement stating that there is no Trust or Trust property.
2.5. The plaint further proceeds that the Trust properties consist of 3.90 acres of land in Survey Nos.171, 172, kaladipet, Sathanakadu Village, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District and Rs.5,25,000/- in deposit in Syndicate Bank. The defendants 3 and 4 claim that the second defendant sold 2163 sq.ft of the Trust property to them, they, however state that there is no such trust and that the property absolutely belonged to the second defendant. There are about 100 tenants in the Trust property at Kaldipet and they are bound to pay rent to the Trust. After the death of Mrs.Janaki Ammal, there is no one to administer the Trust and Page No.5/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 consequently, direction of this Court is necessary for the administration of the Trust.
3. The contentions in the written statement filed by the second defendant are as follows:
3.1. The plaint under Section 92 of CPC is filed to ventilate the personal grievances of the plaintiffs who were unsuccessful in creating right against the interest of the second defendant. The plaintiffs are residing in the second defendant's property. The residents in that property in S.No.172 and 172 at Sathankadu Village have formed an Association by name "Bharathi Kudisai Vazhvor Sangam" to defeat the right and title of this defendant and those who have purchased pieces of lands from the defendant. They also filed a suit in O.S.No.186 of 2001, on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur, against the second defendant and the defendants 3 and 4 for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 3 and 4 from demolishing the superstructure on a piece of land sold by the second defendant to the father of the defendants 3 and 4. The said piece of land Page No.6/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 is part and parcel of the suit property. The plaintiffs who were also occupants of vacant sites in the suit property had put up palatial houses and are enjoying the same. However, due to enmity between the members of the Association and the defendants, the suit was filed and after contest, the suit in O.S.No.186 of 2001 was dismissed by Judgment, dated 29.09.2006. There is no Trust and the suit properties are not Trust properties and also observed that the second defendant Rajamanickam is the absolute owner of the said property.
3.2. It is further stated that the second defendant inherited the suit property from her ancestors as per the Hindu Succession Act, as Class-II heir. The property in question originally belonged to Linghi Chetty. After the death of the Linghi Chetty, the property devolved on his only son Thummi Chetty, who inherited the said property. After the death of the Thummi Chetty, his son Vengu Chetty inherited the said property. After the death of Vengu Chetty, his son Narayana Chetty inherited the property. Narayana Chetty died leaving behind him, his son Venkatasubbu. The above said Venkatasubbu inherited the property.
Venkatasubbu married Janakiammal. Venkatasubbu died leaving behind Page No.7/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 him his wife Janakiammal. Janakiammal died issue less, therefore, after the death of Venkatasubbu and his wife Janakiammal as per Hindu Succession Act, Venkatasubbu's sister Govindammal's only daughter Rajamanickam Ammal, the second defendant herein inherited the suit property, as per Hindu Succession Act and she is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property. The second defendant has obtained patta in her name pertaining to the suit property and sold a portion of the suit property to Late Muthumalairaja, the father of the defendants 3 and 4. It is further stated that major portions of the suit property are occupied by the tenants.
3.3. In C.M.A filed against I.A.No.608 of 2001 in O.S.No.186 of 2001, the learned Sub Judge, Ponneri while allowing the appeal on 18.06.2002, gave a finding that the plaintiffs herein who were agitating through the Association had no right to get an injunction restraining the defendants herein from dealing with the property. Against the orders in C.M.A.No.5 of 2008, the plaintiffs filed C.R.P.No.302 of 2003 before this Court for an injunction restraining the defendants from demolishing the superstructure and mandapam in the suit property and the C.R.P. was Page No.8/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 dismissed by this Court by an order dated 12.08.2003, rejecting the contention of the plaintiffs. In the above C.M.A. this Court observed that the plaintiffs herein who were represented by their Sangam did not have any right to sue the defendants on the ground that it is a Trust property.
3.4. The plaintiffs and other tenants filed Writ Petition No.6337 of 2001 before this Court against the Revenue Department with a direction to issue patta's in their favour, with respect to the suit property. This Court, directed the Revenue Department to dispose their applications on merit. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Sub Collector, after enquiry, gave a finding that the patta issued in favour of Rajamanickammal, the second defendant pertaining to the property viz., lands in S.Nos.171 and 172 with an extent of 3 acres 89 cents was correct and the claim of the plaintiffs was rejected. The Revenue Divisional Officer further held that a perusal of records for 165 years discloses that the property was a private property and there was no trace of any trust and the second defendant is the legal heir of the last patta holder and the property was inherited rightly by the second defendant and the legal-heir certificates issued to the second defendant and the patta issued in favour of the Page No.9/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 second defendant were correctly issued and there was no necessity to interfere with the grant of patta in favour of the second defendant. It is clear that the Revenue Department also confirmed the title and patta in favour of the second defendant. The defendant has also paid Urban Land Tax to the tune of Rs.2,40,000/-. The assessment stands in the name of the second defendant with respect to the properties at Sathankadu Village in S.Nos.171 and 172.
3.5. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal against the order dated 10.03.2006 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer before the District Revenue Officer. The District Revenue Officer, dismissed the Appeal on 30.04.2008. Neither Gnanamuthammal nor Janakiammal were owners of the suit property and the suit properties are not the trust properties and they are private properties. The second defendant-Rajamanickkamal is the direct descendant of Nachappa Chetty and she is the absolute owner of the suit property. The patta rightly stands in the name of Rajamanickammal and she is the person who inherited the entire property of Vengu Chetty and she is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
Page No.10/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 3.6. The plaintiffs have also filed an Appeal in A.S.No.7 of 2007 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Ponneri and the above Appeal is pending. As there was a suit (Civil Suit proceedings) already pending with respect to the suit property and the issue in the present suit is the same as in the earlier suit, the present suit is not maintainable and the findings in earlier proceedings operate as res judicata. The plaintiffs are approaching this Court only to protect their own personal interest and to squat over the suit property, without paying rent. Hence, the second defendant prays this Court for dismissal of the suit.
4.1. In the written statement filed by the defendants 3 and 4, it is alleged that the superstructure, ground and premises at Door No.133, T.H.Road, at Sathankadu Village in S.Nos.171 and 172 absolutely belonged to one Nachappa Chetty. The revenue records also confirm that the suit property which includes the property referred to above belonged to Nachappa Chetty and descended one Venkata Subbu. He died issueless leaving his wife Late Janakiammal. She inherited the property and was dealing with the property and as early as on 05.03.1930 itself she executed registered lease deed in favour of one Shanmuga Sundara Page No.11/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 Mudalair and stated that the property leased out was the absolute property of her husband Venkatasubbu, who was the descendant of Nachappa Chetty.
4.2. Similarly, the property at door No.133, T.H.Road, Sathankadu Village was let out to run a hotel business in 1955 itself, by the second defendant. One Ramaraj was the tenant of the building and he was running a Hotel by name Hari Nivas. He was a tenant of the building under the second defendant who inherited the property from Janakiammal being the sister's daughter of Late Venkatasubbu, the husband of Janakiammal. Thereafter, the hotel business was purchased by one Paulraj who did the hotel business in the name of Sumuga Hotel from 1987 onwards. In the year 1993 Late Muthumalai Raja, the father of these defendants purchased the hotel business and also became the tenant of the building under the second defendant Rajamanickam Ammal and was running the business in the name of Pushpa hotel. On 08.03.1996, he purchased the house ground and premises at No.133, T.H.Road in S.Nos.171 and 172, Sathankadu Village having a total extent of 2163 sq.ft from the second defendant by a registered sale deed. On the North Page No.12/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 Eastern side, there was a building with a measurement of about 20' x 23' which was let out to him by the second defendant which was used for storing materials. The defendants' father died in the year 2000 and thereafter, the defendants 3 and 4 were running the business. The property tax and revenue records were transferred in the name of the defendant's father and thereafter in the name of the defendants 3 and 4. Prior to the purchase by their father, the pata for the land was in the name of the second defendant.
4.3. In the year 2001, the defendants 3 and 4 wanted to demolish the old superstructure and put up a new superstructure. As soon as the defendants demolished the superstructure, the plaintiffs who are the Office Bearers of Bharathi Kudisai Vazor Sangam filed a suit in O.S.No.186 of 2001 on the file of District Munsiff cum Judicial Magistrate Court at Thiruvottiyur against the second, third and fourth defendants, seeking a permanent injunction restraining them from demolishing the superstructure and if demolished to restore the superstructure to its original form. After contest, the learned District Munsiff cum Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur, has held that the Page No.13/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 properties belonged to one Nachappa Chetty, which was inherited by one Venkatasubbu, and subsequently inherited by the second defendant, Rajamanickam, who is the legal-heir of Venkatasubbu. The Court has also rejected the contentions of the plaintiffs that the property is a Trust property by name Ganamuthammal Trust. Thereafter, the plaintiffs approached before Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri for cancellation of patta. The Revenue Divisional Officer, by order dated 10.03.2006, rejected the claim of the plaintiffs and the appeal filed by them was also rejected by the District Revenue Officer, Tiruvellore on 30.04.2008.
4.4. It is further stated that the scope of Section 92 of Code of Civil Procedure does not empower the Scheme Court to decide the title of the Trust properties in dispute. Hence, the present suit is misconceived and unsustainable in law. It is further stated that the plaintiffs know that Janakiammal died as early as 03.11.1990. If so, what prompted to them to wait so long for nearly about 15 years, and therefore, it clearly shows that the mala fide intention of the plaintiffs and they have absolutely no concern or interest in the alleged Trust. Hence, the defendants 3 and 4 pray this Court for dismissal of the suit.
Page No.14/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008
5. Based on the above pleadings and documents filed by both parties and submission made by both the Counsel, the following issues have been framed by this Court on 11.10.2013:-
"1. Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit since the suit property is situated at Thiruvottiyur in Thiruvallore District?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from raising the question whether the suit property is trust property in view of their conduct by seeking patta for the suit property by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.6337 of 2001?
3. Whether the second defendant is the absolute owner of the suit property?
4. Whether Gnanamuthammal Trust shown as the first defendant in the suit was in existence at any point of time?
5. Whether the suit properties belong to the said Gnamuthammal Trust?
Page No.15/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008
6. Whether the plaintiffs are the members of Bharathi Kudisai Vazvor Sangam?
7. Whether the suit is not barred by resjudicata on account of the Judgment and Decree dated 29.09.2006 in O.S.No.186 of 2001 on the file of District Munsif Court, Thiruvottiyur?
8. Whether the suit under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code is maintainable at the instance of the plaintiffs herein?
9. To what other reliefs, the parties are entitled to?"
6. After framing of issues, during trial, on the side of the plaintiffs, three witnesses were examined as P.W.1. to P.W.3. and 41 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P41. On the side of the defendants, two witnesses were examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2 and 20 documents were marked as Exs.D1 to D20.
7. Heard the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the Page No.16/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 materials available on record.
8. The case of the Plaintiffs is that the suit properties originally belongs to Gnanamuthammal trust. The said trust is a Public Charitable trust. One Late Janaki Ammal, the then Hereditary trustee filed C.S.No.724 of 1990 before this Court, seeking permission of this Court to sell one of the properties of the trust in Linghi Chetty street, Chennai. In the said suit, it is stated that the Trust came into existence in 1749 and that the properties of the Trust comprised of properties at Kaladipet, Thiruvetriyoor and at Linghi Chetty Street, Chennai - 600 001. By an order dated 20.09.1990, this Court in C.S.No.724 of 1990, permitted Late P.Janaki Ammal to sell one of the properties of the Trust viz., the building bearing Door No.195, Linghi Chetty Street, Chennai to one Mrs.Pauline Mary for a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- and further directed to invest entire sum of Rs.5,25,000/- in the Syndicate Bank, Mount Road Branch and accordingly the said amount was deposited. The said Late Janaki Ammal died on 03.11.1990. Thereafter, O.P.No.627 of 1990 was filed by one Mrs.G.Rajamanickam, the second defendant herein under Sections 232 and 276 of Indian Succession Act claiming that by a Will Page No.17/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 dated 25.11.1983 two properties belonging to Late Janaki Ammal in George Town, Chennai were bequeathed to Mrs.G.Rajamanickam and Letters of Administration was also granted by this Court. The suit properties have not been covered in the Will executed by Late Janaki Ammal. The properties covered under the Will executed by Janaki Ammal was the separate property of the Janaki Ammal, whereas the suit properties are the trust properties and they are occupied by the tenants. The plaintiffs are the tenants in occupation of the property of the Trust at Kaladipet, Thiruvetriyoor and they have been paying ground rent to the Trust till the death of Janaki Ammal. A sum of Rs. 5,25,000/- deposited in Syndicate Bank, Mount Road Branch also belongs to the Trust and there is no one to receive the rent and to administer the Trust property. The second defendant has denounced the Trust and is now trying to sell the Trust property treating the same as inherited by her. Further, O.P.No.627 of 1990 filed by the second defendant clearly shows that Janaki Ammal executed a Will dated 25.11.1983 bequeathing two immovable properties belonging to her in George Town, Chennai to the second defendant herein and she is described as foster daughter of Late Janaki Ammal. As far as the Trust property is concerned late Janaki Page No.18/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 Ammal has not nominated any one to succeed her. None has made any claim to administer the Trust property as hereditary heir. The tenants who formed a Sangam by name Bharathi Kudisai Valvoor Sangam filed a suit in O.S.No.186 of 2001 against the defendants 2 to 4 alleging that these defendants are attempting to convert the trust property as private property of the second defendant. In the said suit, the defendants 2 to 4 filed a statement stating that the suit property is not a trust property and there is no trust and the suit property absolutely belonged to the second defendant. There are about 100 tenants in the Trust property at Kaldipet and they are bound to pay rent to the Trust. After the death of Mrs.Janaki Ammal, there is no one to administer the Trust and therefore direction of this Court is necessary for the administration of the trust.
9. The case of the second defendant is that the plaintiffs are residing in the second defendant's property. The residents in that property in S.Nos.171 and 172 at Sathankadu Village have formed an Association by name "Bharathi Kudisai Vazhvor Sangam" to defeat the right and title of this defendant and those who have purchased pieces of lands from the defendant. They also filed a suit in O.S.No.186 of 2001, on the file of the Page No.19/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur, against the second defendant and the defendants 3 and 4 for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 3 and 4 from demolishing the superstructure on a piece of land sold by the second defendant to the father of the defendants 3 and 4. The said piece of land is part and parcel of the suit property. The plaintiffs who were also occupants of vacant sites in the suit property had put up palatial houses and are enjoying the same. However, due to enmity between the Plaintiffs and the second defendant, they have filed suit in O.S.No.186 of 2001 and after contest, the said suit was dismissed by the trial Court vide Judgment, dated 29.09.2006 holding that there is no Trust and the suit properties are not Trust properties and also observed that the second defendant Rajamanickam is the absolute owner of the said property. The second defendant inherited the suit property from her ancestors, as per the Hindu Succession Act, as Class-II heir. The property in question originally belonged to Linghi Chetty. After the death of the Linghi Chetty, the property devolved on his only son Thummi Chetty, who inherited the said property. After the death of the Thummi Chetty, his son Vengu Chetty inherited the said property. After the death of Vengu Chetty, his son Page No.20/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 Narayana Chetty inherited the property. Narayana Chetty died leaving behind him, his son Venkatasubbu. The above said Venkatasubbu inherited the property. Venkatasubbu married Janakiammal. Venkatasubbu died leaving behind him his wife Janakiammal. Janakiammal died issue less, therefore, after the death of Venkatasubbu and his wife Janakiammal as per Hindu Succession Act, Venkatasubbu's sister Govindammal's only daughter Rajamanickam Ammal, the second defendant herein inherited the suit property, as per Hindu Succession Act and she is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property. The second defendant has obtained patta in her name pertaining to the suit property and sold a portion of the suit property to Late Muthumalairaja, the father of the defendants 3 and 4. It is further stated that major portions of the suit property are occupied by the tenants. The Plaintiffs and other tenants also filed Writ Petition before this court in W.P.No.6337 of 2001 against the Revenue Department with a direction to issue patta's in their favour, with respect to the suit property. This Court, directed the Revenue Department to dispose their applications on merit. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Sub Collector, after enquiry, gave a finding that the patta issued in favour of Rajamanickammal, the second Page No.21/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 defendant pertaining to the suit property was correct and the claim of the plaintiffs was rejected, against which the plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the District Revenue Officer, who also dismissed the Appeal on 30.04.2008, confirming the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer. Neither Gnanamuthammal nor Janakiammal were owners of the suit property and the suit properties are not the trust properties and they are private properties. The second defendant-Rajamanickkamal is the direct descendant of Nachappa Chetty and she is the absolute owner of the suit property. The patta rightly stands in the name of Rajamanickammal and she is the person who inherited the entire property of Vengu Chetty and she is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiffs have also filed an Appeal in A.S.No.7 of 2007 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Ponneri and the same is pending. During the pendency of the Appeal, the Plaintiffs have filed the present suit. The second defendant further stated that as there was a suit (Civil Suit proceedings) already pending with respect to the suit property and the issue in the present suit is the same as in the earlier suit, the present suit is not maintainable and the findings in earlier proceedings operate as res judicata and the plaintiffs are approaching this Court only to protect their Page No.22/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 own personal interest and to squat over the suit property, without paying rent. Hence, the second defendant prays this Court for dismissal of the suit.
10. The defendants 3 and 4 have reiterated the case of the second defendant. It is stated that in the year 1993 Late Muthumalai Raja, the father of these defendants was running hotel business and also became the tenant of the building under the second defendant and was running the business in the name of Pushpa hotel. On 08.03.1996, he purchased the house ground and premises at No.133, T.H.Road in S.Nos.171 and 172, Sathankadu Village having a total extent of 2163 sq.ft from the second defendant by a registered sale deed. On the North Eastern side, there was a building with a measurement of about 20' x 23' which was let out to him by the second defendant which was used for storing materials. The defendants' father died in the year 2000 and thereafter, the defendants 3 and 4 were running the business. The property tax and revenue records were transferred in the name of the defendant's father and thereafter in the name of the defendants 3 and 4. Prior to the purchase by their father, the patta for the land was in the name of the Page No.23/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 second defendant. In the year 2001, the defendants 3 and 4 wanted to demolish the old superstructure and put up a new superstructure. As soon as the defendants demolished the superstructure, the plaintiffs who are the Office Bearers of Bharathi Kudisai Vazor Sangam filed a suit in O.S.No.186 of 2001 on the file of District Munsiff cum Judicial Magistrate Court at Thiruvottiyur against the second, third and fourth defendants, seeking a permanent injunction restraining them from demolishing the superstructure and if demolished to restore the superstructure to its original form. After contest, the learned District Munsiff cum Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur, has dismissed the suit. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed the Writ petition before this Court and as per the directions of this Court they approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri for cancellation of patta. The Revenue Divisional Officer, by order dated 10.03.2006, rejected the claim of the plaintiffs and the appeal filed by them was also rejected by the District Revenue Officer, Tiruvellore on 30.04.2008. . It is further stated that the scope of Section 92 of Code of Civil Procedure does not empower the Scheme Court to decide the title of the Trust properties in dispute Hence, the present suit is misconceived and unsustainable in law. It is further stated Page No.24/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 that the plaintiffs know that Janakiammal died as early as 03.11.1990. If so, what prompted to them to wait so long for nearly about 15 years, and therefore, it clearly shows the mala fide intention of the plaintiffs and they have absolutely no concern or interest in the alleged Trust. Hence, the defendants 3 and 4 pray this Court for dismissal of the suit.
11. Heard the learned counsel for the Plaintiffs as well as the learned counsel for the defendants.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the suit properties originally belong to the Gnanamuthammal trust and the said trust is a Public Charitable trust. He would further submit that one Late Janaki Ammal, the then Hereditary trustee filed C.S.No.724 of 1990 before this Court, in which she has stated that the properties of the Trust comprised of properties at Kaladipet, Thiruvetriyoor and at Linghi Chetty Street, Chennai - 600 001 and this Court by an order dated 20.09.1990, permitted Late P.Janaki Ammal to sell one of the properties of the Trust viz., the building bearing Door No.195, Linghi Chetty Street, Chennai and the same was sold to one Mrs.Pauline Mary for a sum of Page No.25/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 Rs.5,25,000/- and as per the directions of this Court the sale proceeds was deposited in the Syndicate Bank, Mount Road Branch. He would further contend that in the said suit, the suit property also shown as one of the properties and it is clearly stated that the property in Kaladipet was originally a vacant land and a chatram. The first defendant reconstructed the Chatram and the remaining lands are in occupation of the tenants who had put up superstructures paying land rent only. He would further submit that the said Janaki Ammal died on 03.11.1990 and thereafter there was no one to maintain the trust and they are not receiving the rent from the plaintiffs and other tenants. He would further submit that in order to substantiate the case, some of the tenants in the suit property have been examined as witnesses and also they produced the plaint in the suit filed by Late Janaki Ammal in C.S.No.724 of 1994 and Judgement passed by this Court in the said suit on 20.09.1990 and the sale deeds of some of the tenants who purchased the land and put up superstructure and some of the tenants who have purchased the superstructure from other tenants. He would further submit that before the death of Late Janaki Ammal she issued the rent receipts in the name of Gnanamuthammal Trust and the defendants have not denied the fact that Page No.26/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 the Janaki Ammal was wife of Venkatasubbu. The second defendant also claimed the title through Venkatasubbu and Janaki Ammal. It is further submitted that when the second defendant claims that the properties are ancestral properties and Venkatasubbu got the property lastly and since the Venkatasubbu died issue less and leaving behind his wife Janakiammal and as the second defendant was brought up by Janaki Ammal, after the death of the Janaki Ammal, the second defendant who is the sister's daughter of Venkatasubbu inherited the suit property through Venkatasubbu as per Sections 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act. Therefore he would submit that once the Geneology tree is admitted and the said Janakiammal also executed a will in favour of the second defendant with reference to other properties, she filed the O.P. before this Court for grant of letters of administration in O.P.No.627 of 1990. It is further submitted that the will produced by the second defendant itself shows that this property has not been sold and the said Will was only executed by Janakiammal in favour of the second defendant and the property is only the individual property and not the trust property and therefore the plaintiffs are admittedly the tenants in the suit properties and till the life time of Janaki Ammal they have paid the rent she Page No.27/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 collected and issued the receipts and after the death of Janaki Ammal, there is no one to collect the rent and the second defendant taking advantage of the will in respect of other properties tried to sell the trust properties and sold it in favour of the defendants 3 and 4. Since, they tried to demolish the Superstructure constructed by Janakiammal, the Plaintiffs filed the suit for bare injunction and lost in it. He would further submit that once the property is a trust property, no person can alienate the trust property and also any alienation made is not valid and therefore any alienation made by the second defendant in favour of the third and fourth defendants or any other person will not bind the trust and the beneficiaries and therefore the plaintiffs are tenants in the trust properties and the trust also recognized them as tenants. Even now they are ready to pay the rent for land. It is further submitted that since no one is ready to receive the rent they are struggling to protect the suit property for the reason that interest of trust cannot be defeated. He would further submit that since the plaintiffs are tenants they have every right to protect the trust and therefore they filed the present suit for the aforesaid reliefs.
Page No.28/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008
13. Per contra, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the defendants would submit that admittedly the plaintiffs have not produced any trust deed or any other documents to show that the properties are trust properties and except the plaint filed by Janakiammal in C.S.No.724 of 1990, no documents were produced to show that the properties are trust properties and the Gnanamuthammal trust was created. They would further submit that no witness have spoken about object of the trust and whether the trust have been acted upon. It is further submitted that though Late Janaki Ammal has filed a suit in C.S.No.724 of 1990 stating that since the properties situated in Linghi Chetty Street did not fetch any income and properties are very old properties and in dilapidated condition, she sought permission of this Court to sell the same, since there was no contest in the said suit, this Court granted permission to sell the property and deposit the money in the Syndicate Bank, Mount Road Branch. They would further submit that since Venkatasubbu died issue less, leaving behind his wife Janakiammal and as the second defendant, who is the daughter of Govindammal, the sister of Venkatasubbu was brought up by Janaki Ammal, after the death of the Janaki Ammal, the second defendant inherited the suit property through Venkatasubbu as per Page No.29/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 Sections 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act and therefore, all the patta stands transfered in the name of the second defendant and hence she sold a portion of the land in favour of the defendants 3 and 4 and since they tried to demolish the old building, the plaintiffs Association, as stated above filed the suit and lost in it and also filed writ petition before this Court and this Court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to dispose their application in accordance with law. The Revenue Divisional officer, after elaborate enquiry and thorough investigation found that the properties are only private properties and not trust properties and the patta granted in the name of the second defendant holds good and therefore the suit is not maintainable and therefore the suit filed under Section 92 of Civil Procedure Code is not maintainable and the same is hit by resjudicata. They would further submit that the plaintiffs are the members of the association and as they lost in the suit filed by the association, the present suit has been filed by individual members. Further the decree passed in O.S.No.186 of 2001 dated 29.09.2006 operates as res judicata. They would further submit that the suit properties situated at Thiruvetriyoor, this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Therefore, the suit is liable to be Page No.30/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Further the plaintiffs have not established that the properties are trust properties, whereas the defendants have established that there is no existence of trust and by oral and documentary evidence and appropriate judicial proceeding the defendants have established that the suit properties belongs to the second defendant and therefore the sale made in favour of the father of the defendants 3 and 4 is valid and the defendants 3 and 4 are in possession of the portion of the suit property. The learned counsel for the defendants therefore prays for the dismissal of the suit.
14. Issue No.1:
Though the defendants have filed the written statement stating that the suit property is situated in Tiruvallur District, this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit and if at all they got any grievance, they can file the suit before the civil Court where the properties are situated viz., Tiruvallur. Whereas, the Plaintiffs have stated in the plaint that one of the trust properties which was situated in Linghi Chetty Street was sold in public auction with permission of this Court and deposited the sale proceeds in Page No.31/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 the Syndicate Bank Mount Road and the trust office is in Thambuchetty Street, Chennai. The deposit lying in the Bank has been shown as 'A' Schedule property herein and the office of the trust is also situated in No.295, Tambuchetty treet and 'B' Schedule property is in Tiruvallur, hence the part of the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, this Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
(ii) A perusal of the plaint would got to show that the plaintiffs have stated that the name of the first defendant is Gnanamuthammal trust and its office is situated at No.295, Tambu chetty Street, Chennai. Further, they have stated that the amount of Rs.5,25,000/- with accrued interest deposited in Syndicate Bank, Anna Salai Branch, Chennai has been shown as 'A' Schedule property. Further, a perusal of Exs.P1 and P3 clearly shows that one Janaki Ammal filed a suit in C.S.No.724 of 1990 before this Court and as per order of this Court dated 20.09.1990, the property was sold and sale proceeds have been deposited in the Syndicate bank, Anna Salai Branch, Chennai and said money is shown in the plaint as 'A' schedule property and other property in S.Nos.171 and 172 in Page No.32/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 Thiruvallur District has been shown as 'B' schedule property. Since one of the suit properties is situated at Chennai and the office of the trust also located in Tambuchetty Street, this Court has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour the plaintiff and as against the defendants 2 to 4.
15. Issue No.2:
Though the defendants have stated that the plaintiffs in the name of the association filed a suit in O.S.No.186 of 2001 on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvetriyoor and also they have filed a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.No.6337 of 2001 for directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to issue patta in their name and the Revenue Divisional Officer, after enquiry dismissed their claim and therefore they are estopped from raising the question that the properties are trust properties, it has to be proved by oral and documentary evidence. As already stated that the averment made in the plaint that one JanakiAmmal was the hereditary trustee of the Gnanamuthammal trust and the said trust is the public charitable trust and she has also stated in the plaint filed by her before this Court in C.S.No.724 of 1990 that a Page No.33/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 portion of the suit properties at Kaladipet is occupied by the plaintiffs/tenants and they made superstructure and are paying the rent for the land and further though they claimed for issuance of patta for the land in which they have put up superstructure and lost does not mean that they cannot file a suit to protect the interest of the trust. Further, it is well settled proposition of law that no estoppel will operate against law and the trust property cannot be alienated except in due process of law and with direction of this Court or otherwise as per conditions imposed in the trust deed. Therefore, if any person acted against the interest of trust any one of the beneficiaries can always file a suit to protect the interest of the trust. After the death of the Janakiammal no one is taking interest to maintain the trust property and collect the rent. The second defendant is alienating the trust property and therefore the plaintiffs in filing the suit after filing the writ petition will not operate as estoppel. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the Plaintiffs.
16. Issue No.3:
The case of the plaintiff that the suit properties belong to Gnanamuttammal trust and the said trust is a pubic charitable trust and Page No.34/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 the plaintiffs are the tenants in the said property and till the life time of Late Janakiammal,they have collected the rent for the land in which the tenants put up the superstructure and after the death of Janaki Ammal i.e, on 03.11.1990, no one has taken care of the trust and not collecting rent from the tenants. Though the plaintiffs have filed the suit against the defendants 3 and 4 for permanent injunction restraining them from demolishing the Superstructure and also filed Writ Petition for issuance of patta and lost in the revenue proceedings, the fact remains that as per Exs.P1 to P3, the suit properties are trust properties and the plaintiffs are tenants and the possession of the plaintiffs are not denied by the defendants only rights and entitlement of the plaintiffs are questioned and therefore the plaintiffs are in possession of the portion of the suit properties and they have also put up superstructure. Further, Exs.P1 to P3 clearly shows that the properties are the trust properties and they have also filed the rent receipts given by Heriditary Trustee in favour of the plaintiffs and other tenants and the same were issued by Gnanamuttammal trust office situated in Thambuchetty Street. But, the second defendant claimed title by inheritance stating that the suit properties belong to the ancestors of one Venkatasubbu and he died Page No.35/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 issueless and therefore his widow Janaki Ammal inherited the property and enjoyed the same and further as the said Janaki Ammal died issueless, the properties are to be given to the descendants of the husband i.e, Venkatasubbu as per Sections 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act and accordingly the second defendant, who is the sister's daughter of Venkatasubbu got the suit property by inheritance and subsequently the mutations were transferred in the name of the second defendant and she was in possession of the property and she sold the portion of the 'B' schedule property in favour of the father of the defendants 3 and 4.
(ii) Though it is stated that the plaintiffs attempted to get patta in their name and therefore they approached this Court by way of the Writ Petition and this Court directed the District Revenue Officer to dispose of their applications on merits and accordingly the Revenue Divisional Officer on a thorough investigation dismissed the applications filed by the plaintiffs by stating that patta issued in favour of the second defendant is correct, as against which the plaintiffs filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, the Revenue Divisional Officer also Page No.36/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 dismissed the appeal by stating that the property was a private property and there was no trace of any trust and even O.S.No.186 of 2001 filed by the Plaintiffs Sangam viz., Bharathi Kudisai Vazhvor Sangam also dismissed. It is further stated that pending suit interim injunction was granted in I.A.No.608 of 2001 in O.S.No.186 of 2001 and the appeal in C.M.A.No.5 of 2008 was filed as against the said order and the same was allowed and as against which, the Civil Revision Petition is filed and the same was dismissed by this Court and therefore the properties belongs to the second defendant, a perusal of the records would show that the second defendant claimed title through the husband of Janaki Ammal, and whereas she filed O.P.No.627 of 1990 before this Court and got letters of administration with reference to other properties said to have bequeathed by JanakiAmmal, but the suit properties have not been shown in the Will executed by Late JanakiAmmal. The said Late Janakiammal has during her life time filed suit in C.S.No. 764/1990 before this Court stating that the property in Linghichetty Street and one of the suit properties shown as 'B' schedule herein in Kaladipet are the trust properties and therefore she obtained permission to sell the property situated at Linghichetty Street and deposited the sale proceeds in the Page No.37/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 Syndicate Bank, Anna Salai Branch. She also stated that the 'B' schedule property is vacant land and a portions of the vacant land are occupied by the tenants and they are enjoying the same by paying ground rent. Even admittedly the second defendant has not filed any suit to claim the 'B' schedule property i.e., money deposited in the Savings Bank Account, if it is an individual property and she is entitled for the same, but till now, the said money is lying in Syndicate Bank. Therefore, as stated by JanakiAmmal the suit properties belongs to the trust and the tenants have taken the vacant land and made superstructure and enjoying the properties and are paying ground rent. Even the documents viz., Ex.P6 series- the rent receipts produced by the plaintiffs clearly show that the rent receipts are issued by the Gnanamuthammal trust to the plaintiffs for the ground rent paid by them to the first defendant trust. Further, Ex.P7 also clearly shows that the Janakiammal applied permission to the Commissioner, Tiruvotriyur Municipality for additional construction as Hereditary trustee and not in an individual capacity and even Ex.P10 also shows that she sent letter to change the nomenclature of the property as Gnanamuthammal Trust instead of Janaki ammal Estate. Ex.P8 is the Original letter dated 26.11.1986 sent by P.Janakiammal in her capacity as Page No.38/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 hereditary Trustee of the Trust to the Member Secretary, CMDA for construction of the building and Ex.P9 the order of this Court in O.P.No.627 of 1990 shows that the suit properties have not been shown in the said O.P. and only for the individual properties of the Janakiammal the said O.P. has been filed and even all the other documents Exs.P12 to P41 clearly shows that the properties only belongs to the trust. Though the plaintiffs stated during the examination that they are not personally known about the trust and its activities and they are only tenants, from the oral and documentary evidence, it is clearly proved that the properties are the trust and not the property of the second defendant and he is not absolute owner of the suit properties. Therefore, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiffs and as against the second defendant.
17. Issue No.4:
As already pointed out by Late Janakiammal during her life time filed C.S.No.724 of 1990 before this Court and copy of the plaint has also been marked as Exs.P1 and the Judgment with respect to same has been marked as Ex.P2 and the Decree has been marked as Ex.P3 and rent receipts given by Gnanamuthammal trust to the plaintiffs have been Page No.39/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 marked as Ex.P6 series. Ex.P7 is the letter sent by Late Janakiammal to the Commissioner, Tiruvotriyur Municipality seeking permission for additional construction. These documents clearly show that the suit properties belongs to the first defendant trust and the said properties are public charitable trust and the JanakiAmmal herself stated in the Plaint in C.S.No.724 of 1990 that the suit properties are trust properties and this Court on accepting the contention of the Janakiammal had granted permission to sell one of the properties and the second defendant has not challenged the Judgment of this Court in C.S.No.724 of 1990 after the death of Janakiammal and therefore the defendants accepted the will executed by Janakiammal and not challenged the order passed in C.S.No.764 of 1990 and the object of the trust mentioned in the C.S. clearly shows that till the life time of Janakiammal, the trust was existing as acted upon and only as stated by the Plaintiffs, after the death of Janakiamml, the object of the trust has not been carried out. Even in the Plaint filed by said Janakiammal in C.S.No.721 of 1990, it is clearly stated that the property shown in C.S.No. 721 of 1990 has not fetched sufficient income and the property at Kaladipet is also only vacant land and the tenants have taken lease for the vacant lands and the incomes are Page No.40/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 not sufficient to carry out the object of the trust. Therefore, she approached this Court seeking permission to sell one of the properties and from the said income she wanted to carry out the object of the trust, but unfortunately after getting the order on 20.09.1990 she died on 30.11.1990 itself. Admittedly after the death of Late Janakiammal no rent was collected from the tenants and interest also not taken from deposited amount. Therefore, the object of the trust has not been carried out after the life time of JanakiAmmal. The second defendant accepted the will executed by Late Janakiammal she was working in the Education Department in far away place. Though the second defendant was described as foster daughter and she is claiming title only through Venkatasubbu, since he died issue less leaving behind his wife Janaki Ammal and she also died issue less, as per Sections 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, the properties are to be given to the descendants of the husband of the Janakiammal i.e, Venkatasubbu and accordingly the second defendant who is the sister's daughter of Venkatasubbu inherited the suit properties. Whereas, she filed O.P.No.627 of 1990 and got a letters of administration for the properties covered under the Will, but the suit properties which are not admittedly covered under the said Will said Page No.41/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 to have executed by JanakiAmmal. Therefore, this Court finds that the first defendant trust was existing till the life time of JanakiAmmal and this issue is answered accordingly.
18. Issue No.5:
In the plaint, the plaintiffs have stated that the suit properties are trust properties and the said Gnanamuthammal trust is public charitable trust and during the life time of Janaki Ammal. she filed C.S.No.724 of 1990 as the hereditary trustee seeking permission of this Court to sell one of the properties of the trust situated in Lingichetty street, Chennai. In the said suit, she has clearly stated that the trust came into existence on 1749 and the properties of the trust comprised of properties at Kaladipet, Thiruvetriyoor and Linghi Chetty Street, Chennai. After obtaining the permission, she sold the property at Linghi Chetty Street, Chennai and a portion the properties at Kaladipet are occupied by the tenants who have put up superstructures and are paying the rent for ground, for which the Plaintiffs also produced Ex.P1- and copy of the plaint in C.S.No.724 of 1990. In paragraph 3 and 4 of the said plaint, it is stated as follows:
"3. The Plaintiff states that the said Page No.42/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 Gnanamuthammal had no male issues of the female issues had abandoned the management her brother Venka Chetti had two sons namely Narayanasamy and Kandasamy Chetti. Narayanasamy's son Rangiah Chetty had one son by name Venkatasubbu Chetty. The Plaintiff P.Janakiammal is the widow of Venkatasubbu Chetty and now she is the hereditary trustee of the Plaintiff Trust.
4. The Property in Kaladipet was originally a vacant land and a chatram. The Plaintiff reconstructed the Chatram an the remaining lands are in occupation of the tenants who had put up superstructures paying land rent only. Only a poultry sum of Rs.200/- per month is being collected from the tenants by way of rents. The property bearing No.195, (old No.35) Linghi Chetty Street, Madras -1 was fetching only a sum of Rs.100/- and now on fixation of fair rent, the rent has now been increased to Rs.958/- per month.
(ii) The copy of the Judgment in the said C.S. has been marked as Ex.P2. In paragraph 2 of the said Judgment it is stated as follows.
"2. Gnanamuthammal created a trust in the year 1749 by a stone inscription on mandapam in Kaladipet and dedicated a choultry, garden and mandapam situated in Tiruvottiyur High Road, Kaladipet and a building bearing Old No.35, New No.195, Linghi Chetty Page No.43/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 Street, Madras-1 for the purpose of conducting the charities from and out of the income of the properties such as maintenance of the choultry at Kaladipet, feeding of Brahmins, distribution of butter milk to the worshippers during the brahmotchavam at Tiruvottiyur and for usual mandagapadi during the Paryettai festival. She had also directed here relations to manage the properties, hereditarily. It is stated in the Plaint that the said Gnanamuthammal had no male issues and the female issues had abandoned the management. Her brother Venku Chetti had two sons, namely Narayanasamy and Kandasamy Chetti.
Narayanasamy's son Rangiah Chetty had one son name Venkatasubbu Chetty and the plaintiff P.Janakiammal is the widow of Venkatasubbu Chetty and now she is the hereditary trustee of the plaintiff Trust."
(iii) Copy of the decree of the said suit has been marked as Ex.P3. In paragraph 3 of the decree, it is stated as follows:
"3. That after deducting the said amouts s mentioned in clause (2) supra, the plaintiff herein do invest the balance sale consideation of Rs.5,19,930/-
(Rupees Five lakhs nineteen thousand fine hundred and thirty only) within one month from this date i.e., on or before 20.10.1990 in fixed deposit with Page No.44/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 syndicate Bank, Mount Road Branch, Madras-2, for a period of three years at the first instance, in the name of Gnamamuthamal Trust, the plaintiff herein, and produce the fixed deposit receipt into this court for verification;"
(iv). In Exs.P4 and P5- Sale deed, it is mentioned as Janaki Ammal Estate but whereas in Ex.P6 series- Rent receipts, it is shown as Gnanamuthammal trust. Ex.P10 clearly shows that Janaki Ammal herself sent a letter to the Management to change the nomenclature of the property as Gnanamuthammal Trust instead of Janakiammal Estate. In Exs.P7 original letter dated 25.10.1978 sent by late Tmt. P.Janakiammal, the hereditary Trustees of the Trust sent to the Commissioner, Tiruvotriyur Municipality permitting her to put up additional construction and Ex. P8 letter to Member Secretary, CMDA for construction of the building which clearly shows that Janakaiammal as a hereditary trustee has sent those letters. All these documents clearly show that the properties belongs to the first defendant trust. Even in the plaint, the plaintiff has stated that the trust came into existence in the year 1749 and the suit properties belongs to the trust. Admittedly, in paragraph 2 of the suit filed by JanakiAmmal in C.S.No.724 of 1990, she Page No.45/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 has clearly stated that one Gnanamuthammal,wife of Nachappa Chetti, created a Trust in the year 1749. The said paragraph is extracted hereunder:
"2. The Plaintiff states that one Gnanamuthammal,wife of Nachappa Chetti, created a Trust in the year 1749 by a stored in scription on Mandapam in Kaladipet and dedicated a choultry, garden and mandapam stituate in Tiruviottiyur High Road, Kaladipet and building bearing Old No.35, New No.195, Linghi Chetty Street, Madras-1 for the purpose of conducting the following charities from and out of the income of the properties.
i) maintenance of the choultry at Kaladipet.
ii)Feeding of Brahmins
iii)Distribution of butter milk to the worshippers during the brahmotchavam at Tiruvoittiyur and
iv)For usual mandagapadi during the Pavettai festival She also directed her relations to manage the properties festival only."
(v).From the above, it is clear that the trust was in existence very long back and the income derived from the trust property was utilized for conducting the aforesaid charities. Admittedly, the second defendant claimed title through Venkatasubbu. Since, Venkatasubbu died issueless leaving behind his wife Janakiammal and since, the said Janakiammal also died issue less, as per Sections 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Page No.46/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 Act, properties should go to the heirs of her husband and as the second defendant is the sister's daughter of Venkatasubbu Chetty, she inherited the property. As already stated, the second defendant has not challenged the order passed by this Court in C.S.No.724 of 1990 and accepted the decree and Judgment and she also claimed title in other properties, only through will not as a descendent of Venkatasubbu. The O.P.No.627 of 1990 filed by the second defendant proved the same. Therefore, this Court finds from the oral and documentary evidence that the suit properties belongs to the first defendant trust. This issue is answered accordingly in favour of the Plaintiff.
19.Issue No.6:
The Plaintiffs had clearly stated that they are the members of the Bharathi Kudisai Valvoor Sangam. Even, the evidence of P.W.'s1 to 3 have clearly stated that they are the tenants of the 'B' schedule property and they are the members of Bharathi Kudisai Valvoor Sangam. Even the defendants also stated that the defendants are the members of the Bharathi Kudisai Valvoor Sangam and they filed the suit before the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvotriyur in Page No.47/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 O.S.No.186/2001. Therefore, considering the pleadings and evidence of both the parties, this Court finds that the plaintiffs are the members of the Bharathi Kudisai Vazvor Sangam.
20.Issue No.7:
Since as already stated in issue No.5, the properties belongs to the Gnanamuthammal trust, even the trustee cannot act against the interest of trust and beneficiaries. The plaintiffs tried to get the patta in their name, on an earlier occasion. Most probably after life time of Janakiammal, no one has taken responsibility to come and collect the rent from them and therefore they filed the writ petition to get patta but the present suit is filed under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code for framing of scheme and therefore this suit is not barred by resjudicata. The suit is filed only for framing the scheme to maintain the trust and the trust properties and therefore the issues involved in the earlier suit filed by Bharathi Kudisai Valvoor Sangam in O.S.No.186 of 2001 is for only the injunction restraining the defendants to alienate or demolish the superstructures. The issues involved in both the suits are different and therefore, the suit is not barred by resjudicata. Hence, this issue is answered in favour the plaintiff and as against the second defendant. Page No.48/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008
21.Issue No.8:
The Plaintiffs have filed the suit stating that the suit properties belongs to the Gnanamuthammal trust and the said trust is charitable trust and the plaintiffs had been paying the rent for the said properties. They had taken vacant land and put up superstructure and enjoying the property till the death of Janaki Ammal. After the death of the Janaki Ammal, no one has come forward to collect the rent. Subsequently, when they came to know that the second defendant is claiming the property as separate property and they are trying to alienate the same by demolishing the construction found in the property, they filed the suit. Though they lost in it, they filed the present suit for framing of the scheme under Section 92 of the C.P.C. As already stated that the Janaki Ammal filed C.S. before this Court and got Judgment and decree, in the said suit, she has clearly stated that Gnamathammal trust was created by Gnanamuthammal and after her death One Venkatasubbu Chetty maintain the trust property as hereditary trustee and after his death being the widow of said Venkatasubbu Chetty, Janakiammal as hereditary trustee was maintaining the same. She sold one of the properties by auction with permission of the court and deposited the amount in the Syndicate Bank, Page No.49/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 which is shown as 'A' Schedule property herein. The plaintiffs and other tenants are in occupation of the 'B' schedule property. Janakiammal, during her life time filed C.S.No.754 of 1990. In the said C.S. itself, it is clearly stated a portion of the 'B' schedule property was occupied by the tenants and some of them are vacant and the said Janakiammal obtained permission for additional construction. Therefore, as already held that the properties belongs to the Gnanamuthammal trust which is public charitable trust, the object of the trust has been mentioned in paragraph 2 of the C.S.No.754 of 1990, which was extracted above. Now the plaintiffs have filed a suit against the defendants against under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code for the following reliefs:
(a) To grant leave to the plaintiffs to file the suit under Section 92 CPC;
(b) Settle a Scheme for the administration of Gnanamuthammal Trust;
(c) Appoint Trustee or Trustees to administer the Gnanamuthammal Trust properties and vest the properties in the Trustees so appointed.Page No.50/71
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008
(ii). Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code reads reads as follows.
“S.92.Public Chartities.- (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 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 decree-
(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 inquiries;
(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 Page No.51/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 require.
(2) Save as provided by the Religious Endowments Act, 1863 (XX 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 the provisions of that sub-section.
(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 of 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; or
(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, Page No.52/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 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
(e) where the original purposes, in whole or in part, have, since they were laid down,
(i) been adequately provided for by other means, or
(ii) ceased, as being useless or harmful to the community, of
(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.”
(iii). First of all this Court has to see as to whether the Plaintiffs are interested person for the purpose of filing the suit under Section 92 CPC. The plaintiffs in order to show that they are the interested person to satisfy the requirements under Section 92 of the Act, made the following averments in paragraph 6, 13 and 15 of the Plaint, which is extracted below:
“6. The Plaintiffs submit that they are the tenants in occupation of the property of the trust at Kaladipet, Thiruvetriyoor. They have been paying Page No.53/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 ground rent to the Trust till the death of Janaki Ammal.
13.The Plaintiffs submit that plaintiffs who are the tenants of the 1st defendant are filing this suit seeking the permission of this Hon'ble Court to file this suit under Section 92 CPC for framing a scheme for the administration of the trust property, to appoint a trustee or trustees for the trust and to vest the property in the trustee so appointed.
15.the Plaintiffs submit that after the death of Mrs.Janaki Ammal there is no one to administer the Trust and consequently, the direction of this Hon'ble Court is necessary for administration of the Trust.”
(iv) It is further stated that the second defendant is acting against the interest of the trust in paragraph 9, 10,11 and 12 of the Plaint.
“9. The Plaintiffs submit that from O.P.No.627 of 1990 filed by Mrs.G.Rajamanickam it is clear that Janaki Ammal executed a Will dated 25.11.1983 bequething two immovable properties belonging to her in George Town, Chennai to Mrs.G.Rajamanickam.
Mrs.G.Rajamanickam is described as the foster daughter of Late Janaki Ammal.
As far as the Trust property is concerned Late Janaki Ammal has not nominated any one to succeed her. None has made any claim to administer the trust property Page No.54/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 as hereditary heir.
10.The Plaintiffs submit that O.S.No.186 of 2001 was filed by Bharathi Kudisai Sangam against defendants 2,3 and 4 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruvetrioyoor alleging that the defendants 2 to 4 have been attempting to convert the Trust property as Private property of the 2nd defendant. In the said suit defendants 2,3 and 4 have filed a statement stating that there is no trust or Trust property.
11. The plaintiffs submit that the Trust properties consist of 3.90 acres of land in Survey No.171, 172, Kaladipet Sathankadu Village, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur Village and Rs.5,25,000/- in deposit in Syndicate Bank, Mount Road Branch. Defendants 3 and 4 claim that the 2nd defendant sold 2163 square feet of the trust property to them. They however state that there is no such trust and that the property absolutely belonged to the 2nd defendant.
12.The plaintiffs submit that there are about 100 tenants in the Trust property at Kaladipet. Defendants 3 and 4 are in occupation of 2163 square feet of land in the Trust property. They are bound to pay rent to the Trust.”
(iv)The Division Bench of this Court in Kannan Adityan and others vs. Adityan and six others reported in 1996 (2) LW 364 Page No.55/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 had the occasion to consider as to how the expression “person having interest in the Trust” has been interpreted by the Courts. The relevant portion of the said decision referring to various other decisions reads as follows:
“....the Section provides that the Plaintiffs in a suit under Section 92, Code of Civil Procedure, must be persons having an interest in the Trust. Before 1887, the corresponding provision of law prevailing at that time required a direct interest in the Trust. The word “direct”was dropped in 1887 and thereafter the requirement was to have an interest. The words 'having an interest' have been subject matter of judicial consideration in several judgments. In T.R.Ramachandra Aiyar Parameswaran Unni, (I.L.R.42 Madras 360), a Full Bench of this Court held that “interest” in Section 92, CPC denotes an interest which is present and substantial and not sentimental or remote or fictitious or purely illusory interest. In that case, a Hindu residing in Madras and another residing in Tellicherry instituted a Suit in the District Court of North Malabar under Section 92, Civil Procedure Code, in respect of a Hindu temple situated in Tellicherry. It was found that the former had gone to worship in the temple on one or two occasions in the past and might go there to worship in the future if business took him to Tellicherry and he relied on his right as a Hindu, who worshipped in that temple as entitling him to institute the Suit. The majority held that Page No.56/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 though as a Hindu he might have the right to worship in the temple, he had not on that ground alone the 'interest' required by Section 92 of the Code to maintain the Suit.
(iii)In Vaithianatha Aiyer v. S.Tyagaraja Aiyar, 1921 (41) MLJ 20, a Division Bench of this Court held that where the two plaintiffs instituting a Suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure are the descendants of the founder of the charity, they have an interest within the meaning of the said Section. The Bench observed that the fact that the Plaintiffs belong to the family of the founder would naturally give them an interest in the family charity so as to enable them to bring a suit under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Bench distinguished the judgment of the Full Bench in T.R.Ramachandra Ayyar's case,ILR 42 Madras 360: 1919 (9) LW 492. The judgment of this Court was affirmed on appeal by the Privy Council in Vaidyanatha Ayar v.Swaminathyya Ayyar, AIR 1924 P.C. 221 (2):1924 (20) LW 803. The judicial Committee held that the descendants in the female line from the founder of the charity have an 'interest' therein within the meaning of Section 92, Civil Procedure Code although they may not directly obtain any benefit from it.
(iv)In Ramaswami v. Karumuthu, AIR 1957 Mad 597, a learned Single Judge of this Court held that a person who was a Hindu and was residing only three miles away, and had saved the Trust properties from being sold away by a decree holder and Page No.57/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 had got the attachment released, and was a lessee in respect of the Trust to be by being the highest bidder at an auction held by the Commissioner of Court, is a person vitally interested in the Trust and its proper management.
(v)In Harnam Singh v Gurdial Singh, AIR 1967 SC 1415, the residents of a village, where free food is served to visitors by an institution running a free kitchen, do not have any interest entitling them to file a Suit under Section 92,Code of Civil Procedure on the facts it was found by the Court that the institution was meant for Nirmala Sadhus and the Plaintiffs as lambarders and followers of Sikh religion cannot be said to have an interest entitling them to file a Suit as Nirmala Sadhus are not Sikhs.
(vi)In C.Kalahasti v. R.Sukhantharaj, 1975 T.L.N.J. 155: 1975 (88) LW 57, a Division Bench of this Court held that old students of a College are persons having an interest in the Trust which is in Management of the College.
(vii)In Kumudavalli v. P.N.Purushotham, AIR 1978 Madras 205: 91 LW 205, another Division Bench of this Court held that a resident of the locality, who has some nexus or connection with the Trust in the sense that he has interest in its well being and prosperity can under certain circumstances be taken to be a person having an interest in the Trust and in the cause of a public school.
Such presumptions could also be raised, if he is an old student of the school. The Bench Page No.58/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 said that if a fair inference could be drawn that a resident in the locality is subjectively interested in the well being of the school and, therefore, the Trust, then such an interest would come within the meaning of the expression “having an interest”and cannot be held to be illusory or hypothetical. In that case, the Bench also held that a remote relationship through the female line by itself cannot be such an interest sufficient to lay an action under Section 92,CPC.”
(v) Applying the principles laid down in the above referred decisions of the Division Bench of this Court, I am also of the considered opinion that the Plaintiffs in the suit are certainly interested persons in the first defendant trust for the purpose of instituting a suit under Section 92 of the CPC against the defendants 2 to 4.
(vi) Admittedly, the plaintiffs are tenants in the 'B' schedule property herein and therefore the suit filed by the Plaintiff under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code is maintainable. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the Plaintiffs.
Page No.59/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008
22. From the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that sale deeds executed by the second defendant in favour of the third parties are not valid and will not bind the trust.
23. In the result the suit is decreed in the following terms:
(a) The plaintiffs in the suit are interested persons and they are entitled to file a suit against the respondents 2 to 4 under section 92 C.P.C.
(b) Mr.Francis Cedric D'Cruz, Enrollment No.MS.963/2003 (19, Law Chambers, High Court Buildings, Chennai-600 104, Mobile No.9841047636) is appointed as interim administrator to administer the Gnanamuthammal Trust Properties till the finalisation of the Draft Scheme.
(c) The third and fourth defendants are directed to surrender the property before the interim Administrator and if they failed to vacate and handover the property, the interim administrator is empowered to take possession as per law.
Page No.60/71
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008
(d) The interim adminsitrator shall take inventory as to how many tenants are occupying the suit property with their names and to what extent they are occupying the suit property.
(e) The interim administrator shall issue notice to the tenants to pay fair rent and take steps to collect the fair rent.
(f) The interim administrator shall take steps to fix the fair rent as per the prevailing market rate as on date.
(g) The interim administrator is permitted to withdraw the interest from the Syndicate Bank, Mount Road Branch, where the deposit with respect to 'A' Schedule property is lying and utilise the same to meet out the expenses carried out for finding out the tenant and steps taken to collect the rent. After collecting the rent, the interim administrator shall deposit the amount in the said account and maintain the property in good condition.
(h) The interim administrator shall maintain accounts for the Page No.61/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 interim period till framing of scheme.
(i) The interim administrator shall be paid a monthly remuneration of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) from and out of the funds of the suit Trust.
(j) The interim administrator shall give an advertisement in two prominent newspapers one in English and the other in Tamil about the framing of a separate scheme for the suit Trust and calling for submission of draft schemes for the suit Trust from the persons interested in the suit Trust as per Section 92 CPC and on receipt of the same, place it before this Court for consideration and approval.
Post the matter on 31.03.2021 for submission of draft schemes by the interim administrator under Section 92 C.P.C. for approval of this Court and for further directions.
22.12.2020 Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes/No speaking order/non speaking order.
Page No.62/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 r n s/arr Page No.63/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 List of Witness examined on the side of the plaintiffs K.Thirugnanasambandam - PW1 Kovilpichai - PW2 A.Mani - PW3 List of documents marked on the side of the plaintiffs Sl.No. Exhibits Description of Documents 1 Ex.P1 Certified copy of the plaint in C.S.No.724/1990 along with the summons.
2 Ex.P2 Certified copy of the judgment dated 20.09.1990 in C.S.No.724/1990.
3 Ex.P3 Certified copy of the decree dated 20.09.1990 in C.S.No.724/1990.
4 Ex.P4 Original registered sale deed 21.01.1977 for the purchase of the super structure, executed by Muthu Gramini and others 5 Ex.P5 Certified copy of the sale deed dated 26.05.1980 registered as Doc.No.1103/1980 executed by Subramania Gramini for purchase of super structure. Exs.P4 & P5 are the documentary evidence of the purchase of the super structure.
6 Ex.P6 (Series) (103 Nos.) are ground rent receipts
issued by Gnanamuthammal Trust to me to
Page No.64/71
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.698 of 2008
Sl.No. Exhibits Description of Documents
show that I have paid the ground rent to the
1st defendant Trust.
7 Ex.P7 Original letter dated 25.10.1978 sent by late
Tmt. P.Janakiammal, the hereditary Trustees of the Trust to the Commissioner, Tiruvotriyur Municipality permitting me to put up additional construction 8 Ex.P8 Original letter dated 26.11.1986 sent by P.Janakiammal in her capacity as hereditary Trustee of the Trust to the Member Secretary, CMDA for construction of the building 9 Ex.P9 Certified copy of the petition in O.P.No.627/1990 on the file of High Court, Madras.
10 Ex.P10 Certified copy of the covering letter and the
resolution passed on 27.10.1986 by the
Tiruvotriyur Municipality changing the
nomenclature of the property as
Gnanamuthammal Trust instead of Jana
kiammal Estate.
11 Ex.P11 Certified copy of the plaint in
O.S.No.186/2001 on the file of District
Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate,
Tiruvotriyur.
Page No.65/71
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.698 of 2008
Sl.No. Exhibits Description of Documents
12 Ex.P12 Certified copy of the sale deed dated
12.02.2007.
13 Ex.P13 Certified copy of the sale deed dated
16.03.2007.
14 Ex.P14 Certified copy of the sale deed dated
16.03.2007.
15 Ex.P15 Certified copy of the sale deed dated
04.04.2007.
16 Ex.P16 Certified copy of the sale deed dated
12.04.2007.
17 Ex.P17 Certified copy of the sale deed dated
30.04.2007.
18 Ex.P18 Certified copy of the sale deed dated
14.06.2007.
19 Ex.P19 Certified copy of the sale deed dated
14.06.2007.
20 Ex.P20 Certified copy of the sale deed dated
21.06.2007.
21 Ex.P21 Certified copy of the sale deed dated
21.06.2007.
22 Ex.P22 Certified copy of the sale deed dated
31.07.2007
23 Ex.P23 Certified copy of the sale deed dated
31.07.2007.
24 Ex.P24 Certified copy of the sale deed dated
31.07.2007.
Page No.66/71
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.698 of 2008
Sl.No. Exhibits Description of Documents
25 Ex.P25 Certified copy of the sale deed dated
31.07.2007.
26 Ex.P26 Certified copy of the sale deed dated
31.07.2007
27 Ex.P27 Certified copy of the sale deed dated
31.07.2007
28 Ex.P28 Certified copy of the sale deed dated
31.07.2007
29 Ex.P29 Certified copy of the sale deed dated
31.07.2007.
30 Ex.P30 Certified copy of the sale deed dated
21.09.2007.
31 Ex.P31 Certified copy of the sale deed dated
22.11.2007.
32 Ex.P32 Copy of the sale deed dated 22.11.2007.
33 Ex.P33 Certified copy of the sale deed dated
22.11.2007.
34 Ex.P34 Certified copy of the sale deed dated
04.04.2008.
35 Ex.P35 Certified copy of the sale deed dated
16.04.2008.
36 Ex.P36 Certified copy of the sale deed dated
09.05.2008.
37 Ex.P37 Certified copy of the sale deed dated
11.06.2008.
38 Ex.P38 Certified copy of the sale deed dated
Page No.67/71
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.698 of 2008
Sl.No. Exhibits Description of Documents
28.07.2008, Exs.P12 to P38 are sale deeds
executed by the second defendant in
collusion with land grabbers to show the
same, the exhibit is marked.
39 Ex.P39 Counter filed by the 2nd defendant
Rajamanickammal in I.A.No.608/2001 in
O.S.No.186/2001 denouncing the 1st
defendant Trust and tried to appropriate the 1st defendant Trust property, evidencing the same this exhibit is marked.
40 Ex.P40 Certified copy of the sale deed dated 07.09.1996 registered as Doc.No.1720/1966 at SRO, Tiruvotriyur.
41 EX.P41 Original rent receipt dated 15.06.1969
evidencing payment of rent to the
Gnanamuthammal Trust.
List of Witness examined on the side of the defendants G.Rajamanickam - DW1 M.V.Durai - DW2 Page No.68/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 List of documents marked on the side of the defendants Sl.No. Exhibit Description of Documents s 1 EX.D1 Letter was sent to the 2nd defendant Rajamanickam.
2 EX.D2 Notice published by plaintiffs and “Bharathi Gudisai Vazhvor Sangam” 3 EX.D3 RDO passed an order dated 10.03.2006 in the said enquiry and the certified copy of the said order.
4 EX.D4 Certified copy of the Judgment dated 29.09.2006 passed in O.S.No.186/2001.
5 EX.D5 Certified copy of the Legal Heirship
Certificate of Tmt.P.Janakiammal dated
26.09.1998.
6 EX.D6 Certified copy of the permission for the
construction of the house dated 02.06.1954 issued by the Executive Officer, Tiruvottiyur. 7 EX.D7 Certified copy of the rental agreement dated 09.01.1954.
8 EX.D8 Certified copy of the Judgment dated 02.03.2012 passed in A.S.No.7/2007 by Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Ponneri.
9 EX.D9 Certified copy of the property tax receipt
Page No.69/71
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.698 of 2008
Sl.No. Exhibit Description of Documents
s
bearing receipt No.56185 issued by
Municipality, Tiruvotttiyur.
10 EX.D10 Certified copy of the Town Survey Field
Register Extract for the Survey No.289/2
issued by Zonal Deputy Tahsildar,
Madhavaram Zone, Ambattur Taluk.
11 EX.D11 Certified copy of the Name transfer Order
dated 26.06.2001 issued by Revenue Officer, Tiruvottiyur Municipality.
12 EX.D12 Certified copy of the probate dated 14.01.1992 alongwith the Will dated 25.11.1983 executed by P.Janaki Ammal.
13 EX.D13 Certified copy of the lease deed dated 04.03.1930 executed by Mrs.Janakiammal and Mr.C.M.Shanmuga Sundaram.
14 EX.D14 Certified copy of the patta issued in my name
by Head Quarters Deputy Tahsildar,
Ambattur.
15 EX.D15 Certified copy of the Decree dated
19.04.1951 passed in O.S.No.375/1949,
Principal District Munsif, Poonamallee.
16 EX.D16 Certified copy of the receipt dated 22.03.1999
issued by Village Administrative Officer, Page No.70/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 Sl.No. Exhibit Description of Documents s Sathangadu Village, Ambattur Taluk.
17 EX.D17 Certified copy of the receipt dated 26.06.1999 issued by Village Administrative Officer, Sathangadu Village, Ambattur Taluk.
18 EX.D18 Certified copy of the property tax demand notice.
19 EX.D19 Certified copy of the Certificate dated 22.06.1999 issued by the Tahsildar, Ambattur to me.
20 EX.D20 Certified copy of the Notice dated 03.04.1970 issued by the “Bharathi Gudisai Vazhvor Sangam” to Mrs.Janaki Ammal.
22.12.2020 arr Page No.71/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.698 of 2008 P. VELMURUGAN, J.
r n s/arr Judgment in CS.No.698 of 2008 22.12.2020 Page No.72/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/