Madras High Court
D. Sekar vs D. Mohan on 2 December, 2022
Author: R. Hemalatha
Bench: R.Hemalatha
C.R.P.No.2305 of 2020
and C.M.P.No.14486 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.12.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA
C.R.P.No.2305 of 2020
and
C.M.P.No.14486 of 2020 and C.M.P. No.6755 of 2021
1.D. Sekar
2. D. Murugan ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. D. Mohan
2. C. Gnanasekarn ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal orders dated
15.06.2019 made in Trust O.P. No.21 of 2019, on the file of the Principal
District Judge, Cuddalore and consequently declare the sale deed dated
29.07.2019 in favour of the 2nd respondent herein as void.
For Petitioners : Mr.D. Ravichander
For Respondents : Mrs. Hema Sampath, Senior Counsel
Asst. by Mrs. R. Meenal
Page 1 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 01:35:30 pm )
C.R.P.No.2305 of 2020
and C.M.P.No.14486 of 2020
ORDER
This petition has been filed challenging the fair and decreetal orders dated 15.06.2019 made in Trust O.P. No.21 of 2019, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Cuddalore.
2. The revision petitioners are the brothers of D. Mohan, the petitioner in Trust O.P. No.21/2019 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
3. The brief case of the petitioner in Trust O.P. No.21/2019 is as under:
The property morefully described in the petition is a land and house bearing D.No.81-C, 81-D, Thermutti Street, measuring 2257 in T.S. No.1613 of Thirupapuliyur, Cuddalore District. It originally belonged to K. Krishnammal, W/o.Krishnasami Chettiar. The said Krishnasamy Chettiar is the brother of Sundara Ganesa Chettiar.
Sundara Ganesa Chettiar is the grandfather of the petitioner in Trust Page 2 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 01:35:30 pm ) C.R.P.No.2305 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.14486 of 2020 O.P.No.21/2019 and the present revision petitioners. Krishnammal and Krishnasami Chettiar died without any children and Krishnammal during her lifetime executed a settlement deed dated 24.07.1967 (Ex.P1) in respect of the petition mentioned property in favour of Mohan and his male descendants. Since Mohan was a minor he was represented by his grandfather Sundara Ganesa Chettiar as a guardian. The settlee D.Mohan under the settlement deed was directed to make certain offerings to the deity Arulmigu Padaleeswarar, on every 5th day of Brahmothsavam and also perform abishegam to the deity Padaleeswarar every year on the day of death anniversary of settlor's husband and abishegam of Arulmugu Sri Brahanayagi Ammal on the day of death anniversary of the settlor and also feed 10 paradesis, from out of the income derived from the property settled. The settlee was also directed to conduct mandagapidi, a ritual of giving fee for bringing the deity in front of their house and to distribute sugar candy, banana and betel leaves and betel nuts to the devotees present on the day of Masimagam every year when the deities are taken to sea to have a holy dip (theerthavari ritual). As per the settlement deed Mohan was given only a life estate and the property thereupon would Page 3 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 01:35:30 pm ) C.R.P.No.2305 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.14486 of 2020 devolve upon the male descendants of Mohan.
4. According to Mohan he has been carrying out the wishes of Late Krishnammal so far and would also continue to do the same. His contention is that since he has settled down in Chennai and there is no income from the settled property and did not also have any male issue, he has decided to dispose of the petition mentioned property. According to him, the expenses for the religious offerings and charities would cost him around Rs.8,000/- annually and that one C.Gnanasekaran(respondent in Trust O.P. No.21/20190) had agreed to purchase the property for Rs.77,00,000/- out of which a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- would be kept in a fixed deposit and the interest thereon would be utilised for the religious offerings. He therefore filed the petition in Trust O.P. No.21 of 2019 to grant him permission to sell the suit property. The respondent C.Gnanasekaran had no objection and the trial court issued general notice to the public and since there was no objection from anyone, it went on to proceed to hear the petitioner.
Page 4 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 01:35:30 pm ) C.R.P.No.2305 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.14486 of 2020
5. In the trial court, the petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 were marked.
6. The grounds on which the petition was allowed are:
i. The religious offerings and charities are to be done out of the income derived from the property settled.
ii. No charge was created over the property.
iii. The building in the suit property is in dilapidated condition and there is no income from the property.
iv. The petitioner is unable to maintain the property and he has undertaken to do the religious offerings and charities as mentioned in the deed.
7. The learned Principal District Judge, Cuddalore, vide her orders dated 15.06.2019 permitted the petitioner to sell the petition mentioned property to the respondent with the following conditions:
i. To produce a copy of the sale deed within three months from the date of the order.Page 5 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 01:35:30 pm ) C.R.P.No.2305 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.14486 of 2020 ii. To deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in a nationalised bank and utilise the interest for the performance of religious offerings and charities as mentioned in the settlement deed (Ex.P1).
8. Now the revision petitioners who are the brothers of Mohan have filed this Revision Petition on the following grounds:
(1) The terms of settlement deed dated 24.07.1967 (Ex.P1) would show that it is for public religious charity and a specific endowment is also created as per Section 6(19) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act 1959.
(2) The settlee Mohan had no power of alienation during his life time and the property settled would go to his male legal heirs after his death.
(3) The learned Principal District Judge failed to examine the settlement deed and to determine the true intention of the settlor.
(4) The petition in Trust O.P. No.21/2019 is not maintainable as per Saving Clause contained in Section 1 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882.Page 6 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 01:35:30 pm ) C.R.P.No.2305 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.14486 of 2020 (5) When the object of the settlement is for public charity, the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) department has not been made as a party to the petition.
9. Heard Mr.D. Ravichander, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and Mrs. Hema Sampath, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mrs. R. Meenal, learned counsel for the respondents.
10. Mr.D. Ravichander, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners relying on the decision in The Idol of Sri Renganathaswamy vs. P.K. Thoppulan Chettiar and others reported in 2020 (2) CTC 341 contended that the deed of settlement must be examined as a whole to determine the true intention of the settlor and that when it is established that the deed of settlement created an endowment for charitable purposes we have to find out whether the endowment was for specific endowment as defined under Section 6(19) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. He would further contend that the specific endowment can be either for a specific Page 7 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 01:35:30 pm ) C.R.P.No.2305 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.14486 of 2020 charity or service associated with a particular temple or can be for the performance of "any other Religious Charity". He drew the attention to Section 6(16) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, which reads thus:
"6 (16) "Religious Charity" means a Public Charity associated with a Hindu festival or observance of a religious character, whether it be connected with a Math or Temple or not."
According to him in the settlement deed (Ex.P1) there is a clause which states that 10 paradesis should be fed on every death anniversary of the settlor and her husband apart from performing abishegam to deities and that plantain fruits, sugar candy, betel leaves and betel nuts should also be distributed to the devotees on the day of Masimagam by conducting Mandagapidi, a ritual of giving fee for bringing the deity opposite the settled property. He further stressed that all these things have to be performed only from out of the income derived from the settled property and therefore the Principal District Judge was wrong in holding that no charge was created over the settled property. He would further contend Page 8 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 01:35:30 pm ) C.R.P.No.2305 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.14486 of 2020 that when Mohan, the petitioner in Trust O.P. No.21/2019, who had only a life estate and did not have male descendants, the property would be reverted back to the settlor and the brothers of Mohan (revision petitioners) who have male descendants, are now legal heirs and that they are all ready to carry out the religious ceremonies and charities as mentioned in the deed. Reliance was also placed upon the decision in The Idol of Sri Renganathaswamy,Srirengam rep. by its Executive Officer vs. M. Pandian and another reported in 2015 (1) CTC 429 by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners wherein it was held that even if the income derived from the property had alone been dedicated to the temple, it would still be Religious Trust or Endowment and certainly not a private trust to which the Indian Trust Act would apply. It was also held that Section 1 of the Indian Trust Act itself provides that nothing contained therein applies to public or private religious or charitable Endowment. The learned counsel's contention is that in the instant case the endowment cannot be a private endowment as the temple is not a private temple and in fact the endowment was for a religious purpose i.e. conduct of festival and poojas in the temple.
Page 9 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 01:35:30 pm ) C.R.P.No.2305 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.14486 of 2020
11. Per contra, Mrs. Hema Sampath, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mrs. R. Meenal, learned counsel for the respondents, contended that the dedication of property to religious or charitable purpose may be either complete or partial. If the dedication is complete, a trust in favour of public religious charity is created. Whether or not dedication is complete would naturally be a question of fact to be determined in each case in the light of the material terms used in the document. In such cases it is always a matter of ascertaining the true intention of the parties and it is obvious that such intention must be gathered on a fair and reasonable construction of the document considered as a whole. She also drew the attention of this Court to the entire settlement deed and would contend that the settled property was given to Mohan, grandson of settlor only as a life estate till his lifetime and he was directed to conduct poojas and charities described in the deed. He was given the right to utilise the income derived from the property for the charities and should enjoy the said property till his lifetime without any right of alienation. Thereafter, on the settlee's death Page 10 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 01:35:30 pm ) C.R.P.No.2305 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.14486 of 2020 the entire property would pass on to his male descendants and that they can enjoy the property absolutely. In the circumstances, the reading of the deed as a whole, would make it clear that the settlor wanted the property to descend upon her grandson Mohan and treated the property as his private property and thereafter it should devolve upon his male descendants who will have absolute right to alienate. Thus the male descendants of Mohan were given absolute title of the settled property and had been given full liberty to deal with the property as they liked.
12. The learned senior counsel also relied upon the decision in Menakuru Dasaratharami Reddi and another vs. Duddukudru Subbu Rao and others reported in AIR 1957 Supreme Court 797, wherein it was held thus:
5. ...... In some cases where documents purport to dedicate property in favour of public charity, provision is made for the maintenance of the worshipper who may be a member of the family of the original owner of the property himself and in such cases the question often arises whether the provision for the maintenance of the manager or the worshipper from the income Page 11 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 01:35:30 pm ) C.R.P.No.2305 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.14486 of 2020 of the property indicates an intention that the property should retain its original character and should merely be burdened with an obligation in favour of the charity. If the income of the property is substantially intended to be used for the purpose of the charity and only an insignificant and minor portion of it is allowed to be used for the maintenance of the worshipper or the manager, it may be possible to take the view that dedication is complete. If, on the other hand, for the maintenance of public charity a minor portion of the income is expected or required to be used and a substantial surplus is left in the hands of the manager or worshipper for his own private purposes, it would be difficult to accept the theory of complete dedication. It is naturally difficult to lay down a general rule for the solution of the problem. Each case must be considered on its facts and the intention of the parties must be determined on reading the document as a whole.
13. In the decision in Trustees of Gordhandas Govindram Family Trust vs. CIT, Bomay reported in (1973) 3 SCC 346 relied upon by the learned Senior counsel, it was held thus:
"3. From the above, it is clear that charity provided was primarily for the benefit of the members of the family of Seksaria, no doubt including both male and female descendants. It is also Page 12 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 01:35:30 pm ) C.R.P.No.2305 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.14486 of 2020 clear from the deed that the amounts provided for the payment of maintenance and marriage expenses for the poor members of the Seksaria family is bound to take away a substantial part of the income of the trust, if not the whole of it.
4. As mentioned earlier, the Trust is known as “Gordhandas Govindram Family Trust”. That is a clear pointer. That shows that the Trust was primarily intended for the benefit of the family of Gordhandas Govindram. This is made further clear from the various provisions in the Trust deed. A reading of the Trust deed as a whole clearly goes to prove that the charity under that deed begins with the family of Gordhandas Govindram and possibly ends with it. Charity in favour of the Vaishaya Hindoos other than the members of the family of Gordhandas Govindram is not only marginal, but also quite tenuous."
14. Reliance was also placed upon the decision in State of W.B. and others vs. Sri Sri Lakshmi Janardan Thakur and others reported in (2006) 7 SCC 490, wherein it has been held thus:
“Distinction between public and private purpose—Gifts for individuals.—The line of distinction between a public purpose and a purpose which is not public is very thin and technical and is difficult of an easy definition. Tudor in the Page 13 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 01:35:30 pm ) C.R.P.No.2305 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.14486 of 2020 5th Edn. of his book Tudor on Charities thus summed up the principles deducible from the cases on the subject:
If the intention of the donor is merely to benefit specific individuals, the gift is not charitable, even though the motive of the gift may be to relieve their poverty or accomplish some other purpose with reference to those particular individuals which would be charitable if not so confined; on the other hand, if the donor's object is to accomplish the abstract purpose of relieving poverty, advancing education or religion or other purpose charitable within the meaning of the Statute of Elizabeth, without giving to any particular individual the right to claim the funds, the gift is charitable.” .....
15. In order to ascertain whether a trust is private, the following factors are relevant:
(1) If the beneficiaries are ascertained individuals. (2) If the grant has been made in favour of an individual and not in favour of a deity.
(3) The temple is situated within the campus of the residence of the donor.
(4) If the revenue records or entries suggest the land being in possession of an individual and not in the deity. On the other hand an inference can be drawn that the temple along with the properties attached to it is a public trust:Page 14 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 01:35:30 pm ) C.R.P.No.2305 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.14486 of 2020 (1) If the public visit the temple as of right. (2) If the endowment is in the name of the deity. (3) The beneficiaries are the public.
(4) If the management is made through the agency of the public or the accounts of the temple are being scrutinised by the public.
When the male descendants of Mohan did not have any obligation to conduct poojas and charities, no endowment was created over the property as alleged by the counsel for the revision petitioners and hence there was no charge on the property. The performance of poojas and feeding of 10 paradesis is only during the lifetime of Mohan and it does not fall upon the male descendants of Mohan as per the deed.
15. For better appreciation, the deed of settlement (Ex.P1) is extracted hereunder.
1967 - k; tU~k; [Piy khjk; 24, ,Ugj;jp ehd;fhk;
Njjp, $lY}h; jhYf;fh, f];gh jpUg;ghGypA+h; 19, Kfkjpah; re;jpy; ,Uf;Fk; S.jz;lghzp nrl;bahh; ikdh; Fkhud; 7 taJs;s NkhfDf;F Nkw;gb NkhfDf;fhf Nkw;gb Nkhfdpd; fhh;baDk; ghl;ldhUk; Nkw;gbA+h; Jiurhkp nrl;bahh; FkhuUkhfpa tpahghuk; Re;ju fNzr nrl;bahh; mth;fSf;F Nkw;gbA+h; 81D nghpa thZth; tPjpapy; ,Uf;Fk; fhyQ; nrd;w K.fpU~;zrhkp nrl;bahh; ghhpahs; FLk;g IPtdk; Page 15 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 01:35:30 pm ) C.R.P.No.2305 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.14486 of 2020 fpU~;zk;khs; vOjp itj;j nrl;by; nkz;L gj;jpuk;. cq;fspy; Nkw;gb ikdh; Nkhfd; vd;gtd; vd; jhahjp topapy; vdf;F Nkw;gbgps;is ahdjhYk; vdf;F ahnjhU re;jjpAkpy;yhjjhy; vdf;F Nkw;gb Nkhfd; Nghpy; ,Uf;Fk; md;gpdhYk; gphpaj;jpd; NghpYk; NkYk; Nkw;gb Nkhfdpd; IPtNdh ghaj;Jf;F xU toptif nra;J itf;f NtZnkd;fpw vz;zj;jpdhy; vdf;F ghj;aKk; vd; mDNghf RthjPdj;jpYkpUe;J tUfpw ,jdbapy; fz;l &gha; 25,000.00 ,Ugj;ija;ahapuk;
nghUkhdKs;s nrhj;ij ,jdbapy; fhZk;
~uj;JFSf;Fl;gLj;jp ,e;j nrl;by;nkz;L %yk;
Nkw;gb ikdUf;fhf jq;fsplk; nfhLj;jpUf;fpwgbahy; ,dpNky; nfhz;L ehd; cs;s tiuapy; Nkw;gb nrhj;jpy; ehdpUe;Jf; nfhz;L tuTk; Nkw;gb nrhj;jpd; G+uh tUkhdq;fisAk; ehNd mile;Jf; nfhs;skl;by; vdf;F ghj;aKz;L vdf;F gpwF Nkw;gb ikdh;
Nkhfd; Nk[h; jpiria mile;j gpwF Nkw;gb Nkhfd;
cs;s tiuapy; Nkw;gb nrhj;ijahnjhU
guhjPdq;fisAk; nra;aghj;akpy;yhky; mDgtpj;Jf;
nfhs;s Ntz;baJ. Nkw;gb ikdh; Nkhfd; Nk[h
jpiria mile;jJk; Nkw;gb NkhfDf;F tpthfkhjp
Nkw;gb NkhfDf;F gpwFk; Mz; re;jjpfsh; Nkw;gb
NkhfDf;F gpwF Nkw;gb nrhj;ij rh;t Rje;ju
ghj;aq;fSld; jhdhjp tpdka tpf;fpuaq;fSf;fUfuha;
Mz;lDgtpj;Jf; nfhs;s Ntz;baJ. jtpu Nkw;gb jpUg;GypA+h; =ghlyPtuh; ];thkp Nfhtpypy; tU~gpujp tU~k; ele;Njwp tUk; gpuk;k cw;rt fhyq;fspy; 5tJ cw;rtjpdj;jd;W fhiyapy; Nkw;gb ghlyP];tu];thkp Page 16 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 01:35:30 pm ) C.R.P.No.2305 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.14486 of 2020 mjpfhu ee;jp thfdNkwp tPjp tyk; tUk;NghJ ,e;j nrl;by; nkz;by; fz;l fpU~;z gtdk; tPlb ; d; vjphpy; Nkw;gb =ghlyPtuh; ];thkpia epWj;jpg;gl;L rhj;jp khiy Nghl;L thiog;gok; ntw;wpiyghf;F ehl;L rf;fiuAld; tpepNahfk; nra;J tUtJNghy; vdf;F gpwFk; fhh;bad; Kiwikapy; jhq;fSk; Nkw;gb ikdh; Nkhfd; Nk[h; jpiria mile;jTld; NkhfDk; Nkw;gb nrhj;jpd; tUkhdj;ijf; nfhz;L elj;jp tu Ntz;baJ. vd; GU~d; Nkw;gb fpU~;zrhkp nrl;bahh; ,we;j gpwF Nkw;gb fpU~;zrhkp nrl;bahh; ,we;j Njjpad;W tU~h tU~k; ehd; fpU~;zrhkp nrl;bahUf;F jpjp nfhLj;J tpl;L md;iwa jpdk;
=ghlyPtuhp];thkpf;F mgpN~fq;fisAk; vdf;F gpwF tU~h tU~k; ehd; ,we;j Njjpad;W =ghlyPtuhp];thkp Nfhtpypy; cs;s =gpu`d; ehafp mk;kDf;F mgpN~fq;fisAk; vdf;F gpwF vd;
GU~d; Nkw;gb fpU~;zrhkp nrl;bahUf;Fk; vdf;Fk; tU~h tU~k; tUk; jpjpad;W jpjp xd;Wf;F 10 gj;J guNjrpfSf;F rhg;ghL Nghl Ntz;baJ. ek;Kila Fynja;tkhfpa Nkw;gb jpUg;ghGypA+h; vy;iyapy; ,Uf;Fk; =Cj;Jfhl;lk;kd; tU~h tU~k; khrpkf jpUehsd;W Nkw;gb mk;kd; rKj;jpuk; nrd;W jPh;j;j thhpia elj;jp tpl;L jpUk;g Nkw;gb mk;kd;
NfhtpYf;F tUk; NghJ Nkw;gb jpUg;ghGypA+hpy; tPjp tyk; tUk;NghJ Nkw;gb tPl;bd; vjphpy; epWj;jp Nkw;gb mk;kDf;F kz;lfgb elj;jp Nkw;gb kz;lfgb elf;Fk; NghJ ehl;L rf;fiu thiog;gok; ntw;wpiyghf;Fld;
tpepNahfKk; vdf;F gpwF Nkw;gb nrhj;jpd;
tUkhdq;fis fhh;bad; Kiwikapy; jhq;fSk;
Page 17 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 01:35:30 pm )
C.R.P.No.2305 of 2020
and C.M.P.No.14486 of 2020
Nkw;gb ikdh; Nkhfd; Nk[h; jpiria mile;jJk;
Nkw;gb NkhfDk; ,jdbapy; fz;l nrhj;jpd;
tUkhdj;jpypUe;J nra;Jtpl;L kPjpAs;s tUkhdq;fis fhh;bad; Kiwikapy; jhq;fNs rh;t Rje;juj;Jld; mile;Jf; nfhs;s Ntz;baJ vdf;F gpwF eilngw Ntz;ba fUkfhhpaq;fis kl;by; cq;fspy; Nkw;gb Re;ju fNzr nrl;bahNu nra;J tpl Ntz;baJ.
,dpNky; nfhz;L ,e;j nrz;by; nkz;il vf;fhuzj;ijf; nfhz;Lk; ehd; uj;J nra;tjpy;iy vd;Wk; cWjpaha; nrhy;yp ,e;j nrl;by; nkz;il vOjp itj;jpUf;fpNwd;."
A reading of the above deed (Ex.P1) shows that the settled property shall be enjoyed by Mohan till his death and thereafter it shall devolve upon his male descendants . Mohan, the life estate holder, alone was directed to perform certain poojas and feeding of 10 paradesis, etc., on specific dates from out of the income derived from the settled property. His male descendants were not asked to continue with the same and they had the right to alienate the property absolutely. Moreover, in order to constitute a valid endowment it is necessary that the donor should divest herself of the property. What is essential is that there should be an unambiguous expression of an intention to divest and an actual divestment for the benefit of the beneficiary, for example the Page 18 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 01:35:30 pm ) C.R.P.No.2305 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.14486 of 2020 temple or the particular purpose specified. In the instant case, the primary purpose of the settlor was to benefit her grandson and his male descendants and remotely and indirectly to benefit the general public.
16. In the decision in The Idol of Sri Renganathaswamy vs. P.K. Thoppulan Chettiar and others (cited supra) the deed of settlement created an absolute prohibition of the subsequent sale or alienation by way of mortgage, etc., and the settlor had purchased the property only for the performance of charity work in reference to Sri Renganathaswamy sanctum. The facts are not similar to the present case and hence the above decision would not apply to the facts of the present case. Similarly the decision in The Idol of Sr Renganathaswamy, Srirangam, rep. by its Executive Officer vs. M. Pandian and another (cited supra), the property was purchased only for the purpose of performance of charities. Therefore, it was held that the sole object of the deed was to perform charities out of the income derived from the property. Hence the above decision may not also apply to the facts of the present case.
17. Another contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that since Mohan did not have any male descendants the Page 19 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 01:35:30 pm ) C.R.P.No.2305 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.14486 of 2020 property shall revert back to the settlor and as brothers of Mohan their male descendants would get the property. It is pertinent to point out that Mohan did not get the property by inheritance. The property was settled in his favour by his paternal aunt out of love and affection. Paternal aunt's husband is Krishnasami Chettiar and his brother Sundara Ganesa Chettiar is the grand father of Mohan. It is not known whether Sundara Ganesa Chetttiar had any other legal heirs apart from the revision petitioners. In such circumstances, their claim fails and the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.
18. In the result, i. the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. ii. the fair and decreetal orders dated 15.06.2019 made in Trust O.P.No.21 of 2019, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Cuddalore, is upheld.
02.12.2022 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order bga Page 20 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 01:35:30 pm ) C.R.P.No.2305 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.14486 of 2020 R. HEMALATHA, J.
bga To
1. The Principal District Judge, Cuddalore.
2. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court, Madras. C.R.P.No.2305 of 2020
and C.M.P.No.14486 of 2020 and C.M.P. No.6755 of 2021 02.12.2022 Page 21 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 01:35:30 pm )