Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 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.

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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 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.
(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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 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.