Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. In the written statement filed by the defendant, he contended that the suit as framed is not maintainable. It is further said that the plaint property has not vested with the plaintiff, but it is vested in the Dharmakartha, who is the sole Kattalai Trustee. According to him, the suit property is not part of the estate of plaintiff, and, by virtue of settlement deed dated 23.10.1930 executed by N.T. Ramanujam Chetty, the Hereditary Trustee of the plaintiff in his capacity as sole trustee, should perform the charity as set out therein. It is further alleged that there is only a partial dedication for charity, and the dedication is not absolute. Only a charge on the income of the property for performance of the charity is created. It is further said that the present Dharmakartha of the plaintiff-Institution, on 26-10-1989, executed a registered lease in favour of the defendant for a period of 10 years at a rate of rent of Rs. 3,000 per month with a deposit of Rs. 30,000. He has further contended that he filed O.S. No. 10358 of 1989, for getting possession of the property. He therefore, said that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief, and the suit for injunction cannot be sustained.

6. In the written statement filed in that case by the first defendant, they reiterated that the property belonged to the charities and the second defendant Dharmakartha alone is not entitled to execute a lease and, therefore, it is invalid. It is further averred that as per the original settlement deed, the property absolutely vested with the charities, and it is not a partial dedication as alleged. It is also contended by them that the second defendant is also a party to various resolutions, and he was well aware as to who constructed the building. It is also averred that in the earlier proceedings for evicting the tenant, the dharmakartha has also jointly executed a power of attorney along with the Board of Trustees. For these reasons, they prayed for dismissal of that suit.