Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The defendants resisted the suit contending that the entire properties have not been absolutely dedicated to the Trust and there was only partial dedication. The charities mentioned in the documents have to be performed and the excess amount, if any, can be used by the Trustees themselves. When the first defendant, is alive, the plaintiff will not get any right in the administration of the Trust and as such, he is not entitled to file the suit. Defendants 7 and 8 further stated that they are bona fide purchasers. The suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and as such, it is liable to be dismissed.

5. At the time of admission of the second appeal, the following substantial questions of law were framed:

(1) When the recitals in Exs.A-1 to A-3 clearly show that the suit 1st Schedule properties were absolutely dedicated for the purpose of the 2nd schedule Dharmams, is the learned Sub Judge right in holding that they were not trust properties?
(2) Is the learned Sub Judge right in holding that under Exs.A-1 and A-2, there was only a partial dedication?
(3) Is the learned sub Judge right in holding that the suit for declaration of Trust property filed by the plaintiff, who is a Member of the founder's family, not maintainable?
(3) To what relief?

8. Points: There is no dispute that the properties belonged to Veerabagu Chettiar and his wife Guruvammal. They executed Exs.A-1 and A-2 and created a Trust. The main dispute between the parties is whether absolute dedication was made or only a partial dedication was made by the founders. There is a direction to perform charity on a particular day in a year. It is also made clear that the surplus amount, if any, can be appropriated by the members of the family. Because of this recital only, it was contended that the dedication was only partial and not absolute. The plaintiff as one of the members of the family of the founders alone filed the suit contending that the first defendant is attempting to alienate the property in favour of defendants 5 to 7 and they have right to do the same. The defendants also raised a contention that the plaintiff has no right whatsoever to question the same since he is not a trustee at the relevant point of time. Admittedly, during the lifetime of Veerabagu Chettiar, there was no dispute with reference to the management of the Trust properties or conducting the charity in the temple. Only after his lifetime, problem had arisen between the parties.

11. The lower appellate Court relied upon the decision reported in Vadivel Chettiar v. Kuppusamy Mudaliar (1973) 1 M.L.J. 265 and came to the conclusion that even a worshipper has got right to institute a suit with reference to the management of the temple. Admittedly, the plaintiff is also one of the members of the family and even assuming that he could not function as a trustee, he is entitled to file a suit and question the alienation of the property. The lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that at best, only a charity was created in respect of the property and there could not have been absolute dedication. Now, the first defendant has conveyed the property to defendants 5, 7 and 8 under Exs.B-1, B-4 and B-5. Now, these alienations are only questioned by the plaintiff. Perusal of documents under Exs.A-1 and A-2 also discloses that by leasing the property or by mortgaging the same, out of the income, the charitable purpose has to be carried out. Under the circumstance, it is evidently clear that there was no absolute dedication of the property as contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant and it was only a partial dedication, thereby creating a charge in respect of the properties and whoever being a purchaser, is entitled to perform the same as mentioned in the document. Although the plaintiff has got right to institute the suit, the first defendant cannot be restrained from alienating the property as the plaintiff had failed to establish that there was absolute dedication of the property.