Supreme Court - Daily Orders
P. R. Sivakumar vs Balasubramania Gramani (Dead) By Lrs. on 9 March, 2022
Bench: Hemant Gupta, V. Ramasubramanian
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 6138 OF 2019
P. R. SIVAKUMAR & ANR. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
BALASUBRAMANIA GRAMANI (DEAD) BY LRS. & ANR. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
The defendants in a suit for declaration that the plaintiffs are the trustees in respect of a public, religious and charitable trust, have come up with this appeal challenging the Judgment and Decree passed by the High Court reversing the judgment of the trial court and granting reliefs to the plaintiffs.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The original plaintiffs sought a declaration that they are also trustees, entitled to administer and manage the trust properties. The suit was dismissed by the trial court, but in an appeal, the suit was decreed by the High Court. Therefore, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are before us in appeal.
Admittedly, one Kanniappa Gramini was the founder of the public, religious and charitable trust under a Deed dated 25.06.1937 [marked as Annexure A1 before the trial Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2022.03.12 court]. The Founder of the Trust died on 08.08.1953, 13:13:12 IST Reason: leaving behind him surviving two sons, namely, Ponnusamy and P.C. Raju. Since the Family has grown to the fourth 2 generation now, it will be useful to present the genealogy tree, which will throw light on the surviving members of the Family. The genealogy tree is reproduced hereunder :-
GENEOLOGY KANNIAPPA GRAMINI (FOUNDER OF THE TRUST) Trust Deed 1937 (Died on 08.08.1953) Ponnusamy S1 P. C. Raju (Died on 18.10.1983) (Died 1962) Viswanathan Vinayagam Mani Muthukumar P.R.Sivakumar P.R.Chenguttuvan Gramini (son) (son) (son) 1st Deft 2nd Deft (Died 2004) Died 2017 (Died 1969) (both are trustees from 1968 onwards (Son) till date) V. Ezhilarasan Ambiga (son) (Daughter) V. Balasubramania V. Ganesan V. Iyappan Selvam V. Palani Sekaran Gramini (son) (son) (son) (son) (2nd Plf/1st Resp) (died 2017) (son) Geetha B. Ashok Kumar B. Kirthika (Wife) (son) (Daughter) There is no denial of the fact that under Exhibit A1 dated 25.06.1937, the legal representatives of both Ponnusamy and P.C. Raju are entitled to be on the Board of Trustees. Today, by virtue of the Judgment of the High Court, the original second plaintiff alone has been held 3 entitled to administer and manage the trust properties with liberty to nominate another trustee from the family.
This was not the intention of the Founder, as seen from the recitals contained in the Trust deed.
Therefore, it was suggested in the course of hearing that the legal representatives of one branch, namely, that of Ponnusamy, can suggest the names of two persons from that branch to represent the branch in the Board of Trustees. Today, Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, learned counsel representing the respondents stated on instructions from his clients, that the names of V. Ganesan and V. Iyappan, who are two of the five sons of the original first plaintiff, could be included in the Board of Trustees to represent the branch of Ponnusamy. The other members of this branch have consented to these 2 names. The appellants, who were Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (the legal representatives of P.C. Raju representing the other branch) have no objection to the inclusion of V. Ganesan and V. Iyappan.
In view of the consent so reached, this appeal is disposed of modifying the Judgment and Decree of the High Court and directing that Sh. V. Ganesan and Sh. V. Iyappan, representatives of the branch of Ponnusamy will be included in the Board of Trustees along with the appellants namely P.R. Sivakumar and P.R. Senguttuvan to manage and administer the public, religious and charitable trust.
4
Mr. Asiathambi MSM, learned counsel appearing for the legal heirs of one of the sons of Ponnusamy by the name Vinayagam, contended that the other branch should also be represented. But they were neither party to the original suit nor did they seek to implead themselves either before the trial court or before the High Court. Therefore, their application for impleadment [I.A. No. 6 of 2017] is dismissed.
Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.
.......................J. [ HEMANT GUPTA ] .......................J. [ V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN ] New Delhi;
MARCH 09, 2022.
5
ITEM NO.109 COURT NO.11 SECTION XII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 6138/2019
P. R. SIVAKUMAR & ANR. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
BALASUBRAMANIA GRAMANI (DEAD) BY LRS. & ANR. Respondent(s)
Date : 09-03-2022 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN For Appellant(s) Ms. N. S. Nappinai, Adv.
Mr. V. Balaji, Adv.
Ms. Neha Singh, Adv.
Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Asaithambi MSM, Adv.
Ms. Astha Tyagi, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The Civil Appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.
(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)