Madras High Court
K.Arumugham vs The Idol Of Arulmigu Thayumanasamy on 29 November, 2024
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.884 of 2009 & 771 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 28.02.2024
Pronounced On : 29.11.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
C.R.P.(MD).Nos.884 of 2009 and 771 of 2013
C.R.P.(MD).No.884 of 2009
K.Arumugham ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Idol of Arulmigu Thayumanasamy,
Rock Fort, Trichy,
Rep.by its Executive Officer,
Having office at the Temple Premises,
Trichy-2
2.S.Unnikrishnan
3.K.Rajesh
4.N.Balasubramnian (Died) ... Respondents
(R4 died and the petitioner exempted from impleading the LRs of the
deceased R4 vide Court order dated 22.06.2023 made in C.M.P.
(MD).No.7211 of 2023 in C.R.P.(MD).No.884 of 2009)
1/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.884 of 2009 & 771 of 2013
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Civil
Procedure Code, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated
27.04.2009 passed in Trust O.P.No.4 of 1994, on the file of the Principal
District Court, Tiruchirappalli.
For Petitioner :Mrs.J.Anandhavalli
For Respondents :Mr.V.Chandrasekar
R2 & R3 – Dispensed with
R4 - Died
*****
C.R.P.(MD).No.771 of 2013
N.Balasubramanian (Died)
P2.B.Senthilkumar
P3.B.Vasantha ... Petitioners
(The petitioners 2 and 3 are brought on record as Lrs of the deceased
sole petitioner vide Court order dated 22.06.2023 made in C.M.P.
(MD).Nos.5647 and 5650 of 2023 in CRP(MD).No.771 of 2013
Vs.
K.Arumugam ... Respondent
PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of
Constitution of India, to set aside the order made in Trust O.P.No.2 of
2008, on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Trichy, dated
02.03.2013.
For Petitioners :Mr.R.Sundar
For Respondent :Mrs.J.Anandhavalli
2/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.884 of 2009 & 771 of 2013
COMMON ORDER
The petitioner in C.R.P.(MD).No.884 of 2009 has filed this petition to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 27.04.2009, passed in Trust O.P.No.4 of 1994, on the file of the Principal District Court, Tiruchirappalli, and the petitioners in C.R.P.(MD).No.771 of 2013 have filed this petition to set aside the order made in Trust O.P.No.2 of 2008, on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Trichy, dated 02.03.2013.
2.One Mr.Arumugam Pillai executed the registered will on 21.02.1951. In the said registered Will, he dedicated a number of properties for doing religious endowments. As per the Will, the revision petitioners claimed as the trustees of the properties that they have to discharge the above said religious endowments, and the income from the said property is not adequate and hence, the petitioner in C.R.P.(MD)No. 884 of 2009 has filed a petition in T.O.P.No.4 of 1994 under Section 34 of the Indian Trust Act and the same was allowed in spite of the objection made by the temple authority and therefore, the temple had 3/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD)Nos.884 of 2009 & 771 of 2013 preferred a Civil Revision Petition in CRP.No.1793 of 1998 and this Court allowed the same and remitted back to the learned trial Judge to consider the application on merits. Thereafter, the learned trial Judge, dismissed the application by the impugned order dated 27.04.2009. During the pendency of the application, the revision petitioner in CRP.(MD)No.771 of 2013 had filed an impleading petition in the T.O.P.NO.4 of 1994 and claimed their right of trusteeship and he also filed separate TOP.No.2 of 2008 to appoint him as a trustee of the said trust. The learned trial Judge has held that the revision petitioner in CRP(MD)No.884 of 2009 had not made out any case for selling the property and the same is not in consonance with the testators' wish. Whether the testator has given a power to sell the properties is not clear from the contents of the Will and codicil. Apart from that, the learned Judge also held that the revision petitioner in CRP(MD)No.771 of 2013 made a rival claim. The learned trial Judge has also dismissed the petition in T.O.P.NO.2 of 2008 and declined to appoint the revision petitioner in C.R.P.NO.771 of 2013 as a trustee. Therefore, both parties are filed these CRPs.
4/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD)Nos.884 of 2009 & 771 of 2013
3. Mrs.Anandhavalli, learned counsel for the revision petitioner in C.R.P.(MD).No.884 of 2009 made the following submissions:
The learned counsel submitted that when the earlier occasion, this Court remanded the matter only for the purpose of the determination of the petitioner's request to sell the properties is in the interest of the trust alone. But the learned trial Judge erroneously held that the trust has no power to sell the properties and the creation of the specific endowments, has no right to sell the properties,which is according to the petitioner as against the finding of the earlier order of this Court. The learned counsel further submitted that the property is not fetching more income and hence, in order to perform the endowments, as per the wish of the executor of the Will,it is necessary to sell the properties. Hence, he seeks for interference with the order passed by the learned trial Judge and setting aside the fair and decretal order.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in C.R.P.(MD).No.771 of 2013 made the following submissions:
The learned trial Judge has not properly considered the entitlement of the petitioner to claim the trusteeship as per the codicil executed by 5/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD)Nos.884 of 2009 & 771 of 2013 the executant and there was no proof for the mal-administration and therefore, he seeks to set aisde the order of the learned trial in T.O.P.NO.
2 of 2008.
5. Learned counsel for the temple authority made the following submissions:
Per contra, the temple authority submitted that reading of the will itself shows that there was absolute dedication of the property for the endowment and there is a clear divisture of the property with temple and no one has right to seek alienation of the property and the same was propely considered by this Court in the earlier occasion and specifically rendered the finding that there was a Specific endowment. In the said circumstances, the learned trial Judge has correctly decided the issue that the property is not subjected to any alienation and hence, he dismissed the petition. He also submitted that the person claiming tursteeship is faced the charge of mal-administration and the revision petitioner in C.R.P.(MD).No.884 of 2009 has no legal right over the administration of the endowed property. The same are properly considerd by the learned trial Judge and has correctly dismissed the petition. In addition to that he 6/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD)Nos.884 of 2009 & 771 of 2013 further submitted that once it is declared as Hindu Religious Endowment, it is the duty of the petitioner to approach the Commissioner, HR & CE Department, to seek the permission for selling the property. Without doing the same, he filed the petition under the Indian Trust Act, is not maintainable. Further, there is no bona fide in the prayer of the petitioner, who has not belated to the executor of the Will.
In the said circumstances, he seeks for dismissal of this case.
6.This Court has considered the submission made on either side and perused the impugned order, the relevant records and the earlier order passed by this Court.
7. Before looking into the merits of the case, this Court is duty bound to extract the following material portions of the Will to ascertain the intention of the testator :-
“vd; kw;bwhU tpgf;jjikad; bry;yg;bgUkhs; gps;isapd; xnu kfd; fhyk; brd;w itj;jpyp';fk; gps;is elj;ijr; rhpahf ,y;yhky; v';fSf;Fs; ngr;R thh;j;ijfs; Tl ,y;yhky; ,Ue;jhy; nkw;go itj;jpyp';fk; gps;isapd; kf;fSf;F ehd; ahbjhU brhj;Jf;fSk; bfhLf;f ,c&;lg;gltpy;iy/ 7/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD)Nos.884 of 2009 & 771 of 2013 vd; brhj;Jf;fspy; bgUghd;ikia[k; jh;kj;jpw;F vGjp itf;f ntz;Lk; vd;W vdf;F Vw;gl;l jPhk ; hdj;ij mDrhpj;J ehd; V/bc&oa{y; 1?tJ mapl;l brhj;ij g[Jf;nfhl;il rk!;jhdj;jplkpUe;J 31/01/46 njjpapy; fpwak; bgw;W mij ed;F rPh;j;jpUj;jp mjpy; 2/2/47?
njjpapy; jpUeht[f;fuR vd;fpw mg;gh;
Rthkpia !;jhgpjk; bra;J Fk;ghgpnc&fKk;
bra;jpUf;fpnwd;/ mjw;F jpUeht[f;fuRk; klhyak;
vd;W bgah; itj;J rpiyapy; vGjp nkw;go
klj;jpd; jpUthry;
gof;Fnky; !;jhgpj;J ,Uf;fpwJ/ nkw;go
jpUeht[f;fuR vd;fpw mg;gh !;thkpia !;jhgpjk;
bra;jJ Kjy; bfhz;L nkw;go Rthkpf;F
epj;jpag;go mgpnc&fk; g{ir bea;ntj;jpak;
jpUtpsf;F Vw;Wjy; J}gk; nghLjy; Kjypad
ehd; bra;J tUfpwJld; gpujp tUc&k; rpj;jpiu
khjk; mtpl;l eT&j;jpujpdj;jpy; rjhaj;jpw;F Kjy; ehs; jpUr;rp kiyf;nfhtpy; _ jha[khd Rthkp cj;!t K:h;j;jpia jp/jh/ fPHr; rpe;jhkhd fhnthp fiuapypUf;Fk; g[c&;g;g?kz;lgj;jpw;Fk; nkw;go nfhtpy; mg;gh;!;thkp cj;! K:h;j;jpia nkw;go klj;jpw;F vGe;jUsr; bra;J nkw;go kz;lgj;jpYk; nkw;go cj;!t K:h;j;jpia vGe;jUsr; bra;J K:???it/ MWKfk; gps;is nkw;go nghnjthuk; jpUKiw tifauh thrpj;J fl;lKJ bea;ntjid Muhjid bra;J moahh;fSf;Fk; ViHfSf;Fk; kj;jpahdk; md;dk; mspj;J nkw;go K:h;j;jpfis kiyf;nfhtpy; M!;jhdj;jpw;F bfhz;L U:gha;
mgpnc&fk; Muhjid bra;J ,ut[ hpc&g 8/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD)Nos.884 of 2009 & 771 of 2013 mgpjdj;jpy; g";r K:h;j;jpfSlDk; mg;gh;
RthkpfSlDk; jpUr;rp kiyia Rw;wp tPjp cyht[k; elj;jp itj;jpUf;fpnwd; nkny fz;l go gp/??d; !;jhgpjk; bra;jpUf;Fk; jpUeht[f;fuR vd;fpw mg;gh; Rthkpf;F ,jd; V/bc&oa{y; cs;s brhj;Jf;fis bfhLj;jpUf;fpnwd;/ nkw;go V/bc&oa{y; brhj;Jf;fspy; rfytpjkhd ghj;jpa';fSk; nkw;go jpUeht[f;fuR vd;fpw mg;gh;
Rthkpia nrh;e;jJ nkw;go V/bc&oa{y;
brhj;Jf;fspd; tUk; goiaf; bfhz;L moapy;
fz;lgo bra;J tu ntz;oaJ (V) nkny fz;l
jpUeht[f;fuR vd;fpw mg;gh; Rthkpf;F
jpdk; ,uz;L fhyk; mjhtJ kj;jpahdk;
rha';fhyk; g{ir bea;ntj;jpak; KjypaJ bra;J
jPgk; J}gk; nghl;L tuntz;oaJ/ gpujp tpUc&k;
rpj;jpiu khjk; 2?e; njjp mtpl;l el;rj;jpu
jpdj;jpy; rjhaj;jpw;F Kjy; ehs; jpUr;rp
kiynfhtpy; _ jha[khd Rthkp mk;kd; cj;!
tK:h;j;jpfis jp/jh/ fPHr;rpe;jhkzp nf
fnrhpf;fiuapy; ,Uf;Fk; g[c&;akhd kz;lgj;jpw;Fk;
nkw;go nfhtpy; mg;gh; Rthkp cj;!t
K:h;j;jpia ,jd; V/bc&oa{y; 1?tJ mapl;lkhd
klj;jpYk; vGe;jUsr; bra;J mt;tpl';fspy;
njthuk; jpUKiw tifawh thrpj;J nkw;go
K:h;j;jpf;F fl;lKJ bea;ntjida[k; bra;J
moahh;fSf;Fk; ViHfSf;Fk; kj;jpahdk; md;dk;
mspj;J rha';fhyk; kiyf;nfhtpy; cj;!
tK:h;j;jpfis kiyf;nfhtpy; M!;jhdj;jpw;F
bfhz;L te;J ,ut[ nkw;go nfhtpy; g";r
K:h;j;jpfSf;F mgpnc&fk; Kjypad bra;J
9/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.884 of 2009 & 771 of 2013 mg;gh;RthkpfSlDk; ,utpy; hpc&g thfdj;jpy; jpUr;rp kiyia Rw;wp tPjp cyht[k; elj;jp itf;f ntz;oaJ/ nkYk; gpujp tUc&k; rpj;jpiu khjk; 2?thp gpsg;g[ 4tJ gf;fj;jpy; 3tJ thpapy; K:h;j;jpf;F vd;gij K:h;j;jpfSf;F it/MWKfk;
gps;is Mjha ec&;j;jpuj;jpy; mjhtJ jpUeht[f;fuR vd;fpw mg;gh; Rthkp ghpg{uz epiy mile;j rja eT&;j;jpu jpdj;jpy; klj;jpy; nkw;go Rthkpf;F mgpnc&fk; my';fhuk; mh;r;rid KjypaJ bra;J md;Wk; moahh;fSf;Fk;
ViHfSf;Fk; md;dkspj;J ,utpy; nkw;go
klj;jpYs;s mg;gh; Rthkp glj;ij jpUr;rp
jha[khdth; Rthkp fphpgpujc&pdk; bra;J itf;f
ntz;oaJ/ gpujp tUc&Kk; MHg[uj;jd;W jpUr;rp
kiyf;nfhtpy; mk;kd; Rfe;j Fe;jsk;khs; cj;!t K:h;j;jpia jp/jh/fPH rpe;jhkzp fhnthp fiu g[c&;a kz;lgj;jpw;F bfhz;L ngha; tHf;fk; nghy;
mgpnc&fk; KjypaJ bra;J ,utpy; hpc&g
thfdj;jpy; jpUr;rp kiyf;nfhtpYf;F bfhz;L
tu ntz;oaJ/ (o) nkw;go gp/rp/y; fz;l
fhy';fspy; nj???ghuk; jpUthrfk; jpUg;g[fH;
nfhc&;o tifawhit tutiHj;J ghlr; bra;a
ntz;oaJ/ nkny fz;l mg;gh; Rthkp klj;jpy;
jpdg;go kj;jpahdk; K:d;W 3 ngh;fs;
njrhe;jphpfSf;F fhl;Lg;ghL nghl ntz;oaJ/
nkYk; jpdg;go kj;jpahdk; ,ut[ ,uz;L
ntisfspYk; ViHg;gs;spf; Tl igad;fs; 3
K:d;W ngh;fSf;Fk; rhg;ghL nghl ntz;oaJ/
jp/jh/bjd;D}h; uhkr;re;jpug[uj;jpypUf;Fk;
K:f;fgps;is Fkhuh; Kj;Jrhkp gps;is
10/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.884 of 2009 & 771 of 2013 jp/jh/Mizfl;o nkl;Lj; bjUrhkpahgps;is Fkhuh; mg;gUila gps;is 2 vd;Dld; Tl trpj;J tUk; vd; jiladhh; Rg;gpukzpa gps;isapd; ngud; fypa bgUkhs; gps;is (rpd;ida;agps;isapd; kfd;) 3 ,th;fs; K:th;fSk; ou!;ofshf ,Ue;J nkw;go fhhpa';fis jtuhky; xG';fhr; bra;J tu ntz;oaJ/ nkw;go K:tUf;Fs; Kj;Jrhkpgps;is mth; Ma[s; fhyk; tiu Executive ???
ou!;oahf ,Ue;J vy;yh ou!;ofspd;
jPhk
; hd';fisa[k; Mnyhridfisa[k; mDrhpj;J
rfy fhhpa';fisa[k; eph;tfpj;J elj;j ntz;oaJ/ ,uz;L ou!;ofs; ,Ue;J mgpg;uha ngjk;
Vw;gLk; rkak; ??? MWKfk; gps;isfspy; Executive ??? ou!;of;F a[f;jkha; njhd;WtJ nghy; fhhpa';fis bra;a ntz;oaJ/ ve;j fhuzj;ij bfhz;lhtJ Executive ou!;o me;j rka';fspy; fhhpa';fis bra;aj; jtwpdhy; nkny fz;l K:d;whtJ ou!;oahd fypa bgUkhs; gps;isa[f;jk;
nghy; fhhpa';fis bra;a ntz;oaJ/ nkw;go
ou!;ofs; jPh;f;fhrpa[ld; ,Ue;J rfy
fhhpa';fisa[k; bra;J tu ntz;Lkhf ehd;
vy;yhk; ty;y ,iwtid gpuhh;j;jpf;fpnwd;/ nkw;go ou!;ofspy; ahuhtJ ou!;oahf ,Uf;f ,c&;lg;glhtpl;lhy; kw;w ou!;ofs; nkw;go fhhpa';fis ,d;Dk; ,ju nkw;go ou!;oapd; rk;ge;jkhd fhhpa';fisa[k;
ftdpj;J bra;J tu ntz;oaJ/ nkny fz;l
Kj;Jrhkp gps;isapd; Ma[Sf;Fg; gpwF nkny
fz;l vd; jikad; Rg;gpukzpagps;isapd; nguDk;11/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD)Nos.884 of 2009 & 771 of 2013 rpd;ida;ah gps;is kfDkhd fypa bgUkhs; Executive ???? ou!;oahf ,Uf;f ntz;oaJ/ nkny fz;l Kj;Jrhkpgps;is Rg;gpuha gps;is ,th;fs; Ma[Sf;Fg; gpwF nkw;go fypa bgUkhSk; mtd; iyady; lahk; mg;nghijf;fg;nghJs;s K:j;j Mz;
thhpRk; Sub ? ou!;oahf ,Uf;f ntz;oaJ
nkw;go jpUeht[f;fuR vd;fpw mg;gh;Rthkpapd;
rhh;ghf ou!;ofs; ,jd; V/bc&oa{y; brhj;Jf;fis khnd$; bra;J te;J tUk; gofis tN:y; bra;J nkny fz;l fhhpa';fis Fiwtd;dpapy; bra;a ntz;oaJ/ epYitfis fl;oapUf;Fk;
mapl;l';fis tN:y; bra;Jtpl mtrpak; Vw;gl;lhy; mitfis nkw;go Rthkp rhh;ghf ou!;ofs; tN:y; bra;a ntz;oaJ/ mg;go tN:y; bra;jhYk; my;yJ fld; fhuh;fns bfhLj;J tpl;lhYk; nkw;go epYitfis ou!;ofs; jFe;jgo ? invest ?
bra;njh my;yJ ntW !;jhth brhj;J th';fp
itj;njh mitfspd; tUk;gofis bfhz;Lk;
nkw;go ou!;oapd; fhhpa';fis elj;jp tu
ntz;oaJ/ ou!;ofs; tut[ rpyt[fis rhptuf;
fhl;o rhpahd fzf;Ffs; itj;Jf; bfhs;s
ntz;oaJ/ nkw;go mg;gh; Rthkp klj;jpd; eph;thf tpc&akhf ou!;ofs; jPh;khd';fis Proceeding Booh xd;W irj;Jhpf;fhh;L bra;a ntz;oaJ ???
it/MWKfk; gps;is g{i
$fSf;F ntz;oath;fs; rikay;fhuh;fs;
fzf;Fgps;is kw;Wk; ,e;j ou!;Lfhhpa';fis
elj;j ntz;oa rpg;ge;jpfs; tifawhf;fs;
Kjypath;fis ou!;ofns mg;nghijf;fg;nghJ
12/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.884 of 2009 & 771 of 2013 a[f;jk; nlgpy; epakpj;J bfhs;s ntz;oaJ/ brhj;Jf;fspd; fp!;j;J thp tifawh KjyhdJfisa[k; tUk;goapypUe;J bfhLj;Jtpl ntz;oaJld; tUk;goapypUe;J rpyt[ bra;J mg;nghijf;fg;nghJ ntz;oa hpg;ngh; ,k;g[U:t;bkz;l; Kjypatw;iw bra;J ou!;ofs; brhj;Jf;fis ey;y !;jpapy; itj;J fhg;ghw;w ntz;oaJ/ nkYk; ou!;ofs; tUk;goapypUe;J rpyt[ bra;J ,jd; V/bc&oa{y; 1tJ mapl;lk; gpd; fl;L bkj;ijapd; nky; U:k;fs; tifawhf;fSk; fl;lyhk; ou!;ofs; fhhpa';fSf;F mt;tg;nghJs;s brhj;Jf;fs;
tUk;gofs; Kjypatw;iw mDrhpj;J mt;tg;nghJs;s mtrpak; a[f;jk; nlgpy; tphpthft[k;
kpjkhft[k; rpyt[ bra;J elj;j ntz;oaJ/
rpyt[ bra;jJ nghft[ kPjk; Vw;gl;lhy;
mitfisa[k; nkw;go jpUeht[f;fuR vd;fpw mg;gh; Rthkpf;nf nrh;j;Jtpl ntz;oaJ/ nfhh;l;
eltof;iffis ou!;ofns nkw;go jpUeht[f;fuR
vd;fpw mg;gh; Rthkp rhh;ghf ,Ue;J
(rfyj;ija[k; elj;j ntz;oaJ/ nkw;go
jpUeht[f;fuR vd;fpw mg;gh; Rthkp
mtUf;F ,jd; K:yk; bfhLj;jpUf;Fk; V/bc&oa{y; brhj;Jf;fs; rk;ke;jkha; vy;yhtpjkhd fhhpa';fisa[k; nkw;go ou!;ofns bra;J tu ntz;oaJ/ nkw;go klj;jpd; eph;thf tpc&a rk;ke;jkha; cs;s rfy hpf;fhh;Lfisa[k; nkw;go klj;jpnyna itj;J fhg;ghw;wp tu ntz;oaJ/ vd; Ma[Rf;Fg; gpwF ,jd; V/bc&oa{y; brhj;Jf;fs; nkw;go jpUeht[f;fuR vd;fpw mg;gh;Rthkp rhh;gpy;
nkw;go ou!;ofsplk; vest Mf ntz;oaJ/ 13/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD)Nos.884 of 2009 & 771 of 2013 jp/nfhl;il njtjhdk; v!;/bek;/1381 g["i ; r 0/35?y;
tlfpHf;fpy; brz;l; 8y; (gp/bc&oa[{y; 4tJ mapl;lk;) vd; kfd; fnzrDf;F rkhJ ,Uf;fpwJ/ nkw;go MWKfk; gps;is mjpnyna vdf;Fk; vd;
rk;rhuk; ijyk;ik mk;khSf;Fk; rkhJfs;
Vw;ghLk; bra;ag;gl;L ,Uf;fpd;wd/ nkw;go
rkhjpfspy; bjd;dil nfhoapy; ,Ug;gJ
fnzrDilaJ/ nkw;go rkhjpfspy;
kj;jpapy; ,Uf;Fk; rkhjpapy; vd;ida[k;
tlnfhoapy; ,Uf;Fk; rkhjpapy; nkw;go ijyk;ik mk;khisa[k; mlf;fk; bra;J tpl ntz;oaJ/ vd;ida[k; vd; rk;rhuk; ijyk;ik mk;khisa[k; vd; jikad; Rg;gpukzpagps;isapd; ngud; fypabgUkhs; mlf;fk; bra;a ntz;oaJ/ gpujp tUc&k; rpj;jpiu khjk; 2 rjha ehfuj;jpuk; mg;gh;
Rthkp FU g{i$ md;iwa jpdk; nkw;go
rkhJfs; ,Uf;Fk; ,lj;jpy; gunjrpfs;
ViHfSf;F md;dk; nghLtJ vd; kfd; fnzrd;
vd;DilaJ vd; rk;rhuk; ijyk;ik
mk;khs; ,th;fSila tUc&he;jpu jpd';fspy;
gunjrpfs; ViHfSf;F md;dk; nghLtJ ,e;j
jh;k';fSf;F ,jd; gp/bc&oa{y; brhj;Jf;fis
bfhLj;jpUf;fpnwd;/ ,e;j ou!;L rk;ke;jkhd
rfy fhhpa';fisa[k; vd; rnfhjud;
Rg;gpukzpagps;is Fkhuh;fs; rpd;da;agps;isa[k;
ehfgps;isa[k; ou!;ofshf ,Ue;J bra;J tu
ntz;oaJ/ ,jd; gp/bc&oa{y; brhj;Jf;fs; vd;
Ma[Rf;F gpwF nkw;go jh;k';fs; rhh;gpy; nkw;go
rpd;idagps;is ehfg;gps;is 2 ,th;fsplk; vest
Mf ntz;oaJ/ nkw;go ou!;ofs; gp/bc&oa{y;
14/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.884 of 2009 & 771 of 2013 brhj;Jf;fis nkw;go ou!;od; rhh;gpy; rhpahdgo ghpghydk; bra;J te;J mjd; tUk;gofis tN:y; bra;J mitfspy; fp!;j;J thp moapy; fz;l $Ptdhk;r rhh;$; Kjypa rpyt[fs; nghf ghf;fpia bfhz;L nkny fz;lgo gpujp tUc&Kk; rpj;jpiu khjk; rja eT&j;jpuk; mg;gh;Rthkp FUg{i$ md;iwa jpdj;jpYk; vd; kfd;14tJ jhs;
fhy";brd;w fnzrd; vd;DilaJ vd; rk;rhuk; ijyk;ik mk;khs; ,th;fSila tUc&he;jpu jpjp jpd';fspYk; nkny fz;l rkhJfs; ,Uf;Fk; ,lj;jpy; gunjrpfs;
ViHfSf;F tUk; gof;F jf;fthW md;dk;
mspf;f ntz;oaJ/ mg;gh;Rthkp FUg{i$ md;W
Fug{i$iaa[k; bra;tpf;f ntz;oaJ/ nkw;go
rkhJfspy; epj;jpag;go
rha';fhyk; ntisapy; tpsf;F nghlt[k; g{i$
bra;at[k; nkw;go rpd;idagps;is
ehfgps;is ,th;fs; jFe;j Vw;ghL bra;a
ntz;oaJ/”
8. From the perusal of the material portion of the said Will, it is clear that the testator intended to create 'Specific Endowment' and the main intention of the testator is to create absolute divestiture of theproperty to the temple to do religious charities. The testator also expressly disclosed his intention to generate the income from the 15/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD)Nos.884 of 2009 & 771 of 2013 property and use the same for discharging the endowment without any alienation. The said restiction clause is as follows:
“vt;tpj gpuhjpdKk; nra;ahky; mitfspd;
kWgbfis khj;jpuk; mapR gphpj;J mhpae;jk;
mDgtpj;Jf;nfhs;fpNwd;”
9. He had also left a number of properties for the enjoyment of the individuals. Both the revision petitioners are claiming their trusteeship over the property dedicated to discharge religious endowments. It is the duty of the legatee to discharge his duty as per the intention of the legator.
10. Therefore, the learned trial Judge has justly that the petitioner in CRP(MD)No.884 of 2009 has no right to make any alienation. Therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner was rightly dismissed by the learned trial Judge and this Court finds no error in the findings of the learned trial Judge.16/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD)Nos.884 of 2009 & 771 of 2013
11. The revision petitioner has raised a ground that the Trust did not get reasonable annual rent from the land and hence, he seeks permission to sell the property. The said contention was not accepted by the Court below. According to the case of the revision petitioner, he is not a beneficiary under the Will to manage the property dedicated for discharging the specific endowment. In the said Will, there are lot of independent properties. The testator's intention is only to use the income of the property to discharge the endowment. There is an absolute divestiture of the property. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitoner in C.R.P.(MD).No.884 of 2009 that the learned trial Judge has committed error in dismissing the petition holding that the property was not alienable on the ground that the same was dedicated for the specific endowments cannot be accepted and the said submission is also against the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Idol of Sri Renganathaswamy Vs. J.Sriram and Others reported in 2023 2 LW 577, and the relevant paragraph is as follows:-
22.7.1.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.R.Goda Rao Sahib Vs. State of Madras reported in AIR 1966 SC 653 held as follows:17/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD)Nos.884 of 2009 & 771 of 2013 “By the instrument the settlors certainly divested themselves of the right to receive a certain part of the income derived from the properties in question. They deprived themselves of the right to deal with the properties free of charge as absolute owners which they previously were. The instrument was a binding instrument.” 22.7.2. The said principle of that case that the deed which provided for a charge on the properties for the payment of money amount to divestment reiterated by the latest Hon’ble three member bench of Supreme Court in 2019 (8) SCC 689 [M.J.Thulasiraman v. Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Admn.,] with further elaboration of principle held that the rock inscription made in the year 1834 with specific clause of utilization of certain amount for feeding of Brahmins during the festivals of Thiruvottiyur and Mylapore and for other charity expenses amount to a clear divestment of the right to receive a certain part of income and clearly amount to specific endowment in the following paragraph :-18/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD)Nos.884 of 2009 & 771 of 2013 “ …Following our holding that the rock inscription provides for a religious charity, it is sufficient to show that money has been endowed for the performance of the same for it to constitute a specific endowment under the Act. …………."
22.7.3. The said principles further elaborated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2020 (17) SCC 96 [Sri Renganathaswamy v. P.K. Thopulan Chettiar, Ramanuja Koodam Annandhana Trust] and held that whenever a deed created an obligation on the executant’s descendants to fund the charitable activities out of the income of the property dedicated, only presumption is that he had a clear intention to divest himself and his descendant of the property and endowed it for continuation of charitable activity with complete destiture and relevant portion as follows:
“16. ....that, “the settlor purchased the punja land mentioned in the schedule of property… for the performance of charity work in reference to Sri Renganathanswamy sanctum”. The property outlined in the schedule of the deed of settlement is 19/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD)Nos.884 of 2009 & 771 of 2013 described as, “property allotted for charity work”. With respect to the legal heirs, the deed of settlement creates an obligation on the settlor's legal heirs to continue the charitable activities at the suit property out of their business incomes. The settlor had a clear intent to divest himself and his legal heirs of the property and endow it for the continuation of the charitable activities at the suit property. The purpose of the endowment was to carry on charitable work. The deed of settlement obligates the legal heirs to continue the charitable activities at the suit property” 22.7.4. In result, scanning of the various parts of Ex.A6 Vyvastha Pathram, it is clear that schedule of properties are given; various Poojas and charities (Dharmam) have mentioned;
executant clearly obligated to utilize the whole income with complete dedication for religious purpose without any ambiguity of divestiture of title to a temple and complete denouncement of his title over the property. So, in all aspects, acceptance of the case of the first respondent by the court below that there was no divestiture of ownership with temple authority and the utilisation of money alone dedicated without divestment and grandsons got title through 20/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD)Nos.884 of 2009 & 771 of 2013 Ex.A6 and devolved on first respondent by inheritance is erroneous and the same was not consonance with the principle laid down the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated above.”
12. On earlier occasion, this Court stated that the property dedicated for specific endowments and temple has right to raise the objection for alienation and remanded the matter to determine the application under Section 34 of the Trust Act. For determining the Trust Act, it is the implied duty of the learned trial judge to consider the locus of the petitioner and the purpose of the dedication. In earlier occassion, this Court had held that property dedicated to discharge the Hindu Religious Endowment. Once, there was a specific finding that the property is dedicated to discharge the specific endowment of temple, there is automatic complete divestiture of the title of the property with temple. Therefore, no person including the revision petitioners have right to file the application under Section 34 of Trust Act, to seek permission to sell the property. The said application itself is not maintainable. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner in C.R.P.(MD).No.884 of 2009 the petition is maintainable under Section 34 of the Indian Trust 21/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD)Nos.884 of 2009 & 771 of 2013 Act, is misconceived one and the same is fortified by the law laid down by this Court in the case of A.Changi and Others Vs. Jagannath reported in 1997 3 LW 537 is squarely applicable to the present case and it has held as follows:-
“6.Under Section 34 of the Indian Trusts Act, any trustee may, without instituting a suit, apply by petition to a Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction for its opinion, advice or direction on any present questions respecting the management or administration of the trust property other than questions of detail, difficulty or importance, not proper in the opinion of the Court for summary disposal.” 12.1. The said precedent also reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Devision of this Court in the case of A.R.R Charitable Trust Vs. Dr.Arcot Lakshmanaswami Health Care Trust and Others reported in 2024(1) CTC 316. Therefore, on facts as well on law, the petition filed under Section 34 of the Indian Trust Act is not maintainable.22/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD)Nos.884 of 2009 & 771 of 2013 13.1. In the said circumstances, the learned trial Judge correctly dismissed the application. Apart from that this Court independently finds no merit in the contention of the petitioner that in order to discharge the endowment, the property was liable to be sell. There was no pleadings in the Trust O.P.No.4 of 1994 to satisfy the ingredients under Section 34 of the Indian Trust Act, and also lack of evidence that what is the cost of the requirement for meeting the specific endowments and what is the income from the endowed properties and there was no evidence that the endowed property is generating low income and the same was not sufficient to discharge the specific endowments without any basis pleadings and evidence to that aspect. This Court is unable to find out the merits in the contention of the petitioners. Further, the intention of the testators is only to entrust the property for the management and they are appointed as executor of the intention of the testators ie., to perform the endowments mentioned in the Will.
13.2. Accordingly, fair and decreetal order passed in Trust O.P.No. 4 of 1994, dated 27.04.2009, on the file of the Principal District Court, Tiruchirappalli, is hereby confirmed and the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
23/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD)Nos.884 of 2009 & 771 of 2013
14.Discussion on CRP(MD)No.771 of 2013 14.1. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is the sole trustee of the Apparswami @ Thirunavukkarasu Madalayam. In the year 1951, one Arumugham Pillai has endowed his properties to the said Madalayam through a Will, dated 21.02.1951. Thereafter, the said Arumugham Pillai has made a codicil dated 14.03.1951, and appointed Subbaraya Pillai and Kaliaperumal Pillai as Trustees and also appointed one Muthusamy Pillai as Executive Trustee. Thereafter, by making new codicil, he removed Muthusamy Pillai and Subbaraya Pillai from the trusteeship and appointed his elder brother Subramania Pillai's sons namely, Chinniah Pillai and Nagapillai as an Executive Trustee and a Trustee. In the said codicil, it is stated that after Chinniah Pillai, his second son and his male descendants are entitled to trusteeship and the said codicil was produced in the earlier proceedings in OP.No.107 of 1959, which was also marked as Ex.P.2 in the said proceedings. As per the codicil, after the death of said Naga Pillai, his senior male descendant has to be appointed as Trustee and the office of Executive Trustee has to be held after Chinnaiya Pillai by his senior male descendant. The petitioner herein is the only a male descendant alive after the demise of 24/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD)Nos.884 of 2009 & 771 of 2013 Chinnaiya Pillai and Naga Pillai. The respondent herein, who is the grand son of Chinniah Pillai posing himself as Executive Trustee filed Trust O.P.No.4 of 1994 before the Principal District Judge, Thiruchirappalli, seeking permission of the Court to sell the properties described in 'A' schedule. The permission already granted by the Court was set aside by this Court on 13.09.2001, in CRP.No.1793 of 1998, which was filed by the first objector and the matter was remanded back to the Court below for further adjudication. The petitioner herein has also filed counter as second objector. According to the petitioner, the respondent herein is not a fit person to represent the Trust. Hence, he filed a petition under Section 74 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882, in O.P.No.2 of 2008 before the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli, seeking to appoint the petitioner as a new Trustee. That petition was dismissed on 02.03.2013. Challenging the same, this petition has been filed.
14.2. The Revision Petitioner claimed that he is entitled to assume/appoint as the new trustee of the property. There are sufficient materials to show that he is involved in the mismanagment. Therefore, he 25/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD)Nos.884 of 2009 & 771 of 2013 is not entitled to get relief of appointing a new trustee to the Thirunavukkarasu @ Apparswami Madam (Thirunavukkarasu Madalayam) on the basis of Ex.P.2.
14.3. In the said circumstance, this Court finds no merit in the petition. Accordingly, fair and decreetal order passed in Trust O.P.No.2 of 2008, dated 02.03.2013, on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Trichy, is hereby confirmed and the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
29.11.2024
NCC :Yes / No
Index :Yes / No
Internet :Yes / No
sbn/dss
26/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.884 of 2009 & 771 of 2013 To
1. The Principal District Judge, Trichy.
2.The Idol of Arulmigu Thayumanasamy, Rock Fort, Trichy, Rep.by its Executive Officer, Having office at the Temple Premises, Trichy-2.
3.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
27/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD)Nos.884 of 2009 & 771 of 2013 K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
sbn/dss C.R.P.(MD).Nos.884 of 2009 and 771 of 2013 29.11.2024 28/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis