Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. The 11th defendant filed a written statement and the same was adopted by defendants 10, 16 and 17. It is contended in the written statement as follows:

The suit was not maintainable. He could not ask for absolute right as trustee. He had not obtained permission under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure; there was a mistake in the genealogy; the name of Thiruvenkata Mudaliar was wrong; it should have been Ramalinga Mudaliar; his daughter Senganni was married to Sankaramurthy Mudaliar; they had no issue; Sankaramurthy Mudaliar put up the suit choultry; he also dug a well on 4.10.1855; he set apart 10 velis of his nanjai land, 5 mahs of punjai land and swornathaya sites for performance of certain charities; he gave a written statement regarding this before the Tahsildar of Kivaloor Taluk; he appointed himself as the trustee and after his lifetime, his wife's brother Velu Mudaliar was appointed as trustee and after him, his descendants had to manage the Trust in consonance with that; after Sankaramurthy Mudaliar, Velu Mudaliar functioned as trustee; only the branch of Velu Mudaliar had right; Vaithilinga Mudaliar's branch did not have any right; against the wishes of Senganni and Sankaramurthy Mudaliar, Velu Mudaliar's brother Vaithilinga Mudaliar had participated in the management of the Trust by having a partition on 17-5-1895 between him and the sons of Velu Mudaliar, viz. Subba Mudaliar and Ramalinga Mudaliar; as Subba Mudaliar and Ramalinga Mudaliar, though they had been given rights to manage for their life, in view of their old age theycould not manage, on 15-11-1908 they released their rights; in view of that, the branch of Vaithilinga Mudaliar did not have any right; the plaintiff had no right to ask for any relief; notwithstanding that Vaithilinga Mudaliar had no rights whatsoever, his sons Thiruvengada Mudaliar and Sankaramurthy Mudaliar had an arrangement between them under a partition dated 28-2-1916 and as per the terms of the said partition, Thiruvengada Mudaliar was managing for 6 faslis till his lifetime; he passed away in 1940; at that time the management was with the branch of Velu Mudaliar; Sankaramurthy Mudaliar died in the very next year in 1941; he did not get a chance to manage the Trust; the terms of the partition did not come into effect; the plaintiff could not seek any rights; there was a partition arrangement in the branches of Thiruvenkata Mudaliar and Sankaramurthy Mudaliar on 2-10-1933, as per the terms of which, after Thiruvenkata Mudaliar, Sankaramurthy Mudaliar and after him the eldest male member of the two families would have to be in management; there was change of the right to succeed in spite of "mootha varisugal", it became "moothavar"; if the 1916 partition was accepted, the third defendant Shanmugha Mudaliar had a right to manage along with the plaintiff; the arrangement under 1916 and 1933 documents enabling the branch of Vaithilinga Mudaliar for managing the Trust for 6 faslis did not come into effect; each sub branch in Vaithilinga Mudaliar branch was managing the Trust for 3 faslis; the 3 faslis right of the branch of Sankaramurthy Mudaliar was divided among Natesa Mudaliar, the plaintiff and the second defendant into three shares and they were paying kist separately and lessees had also taken steps; a minor portion of the income from the suit properties was adequate for performing the Trust; it could not be said that the entire extent had been endowed for Trust; it was also not mentioned in the statement given on 4-10-1855 by Senkanni Sankaramurthy Mudaliar that the properties could not be alienated; it should be said that the properties were only burdened with Trust; there was only a partial dedication and the partition dated 2-1-1974 was a valid partition and it had come into effect without asking for cancellation of the said partition; the plaintiff could not claim absolute right; the partition had been accepted by the authorities under the Land Reforms Act and they had been dealing with the properties and disposing them of; even the properties given to Natesa Mudaliar and other sharers had been sold; the partition had come into effect and accepted by all the trustees; the plaintiff could not ignore the said partition; the suit was liable to be dismissed.

20. A reading of the various documents relating to the Trust clearly shows that there was an out and out dedication of the properties and the finding by the lower Court that there was only partial dedication cannot be sustained. The learned Judge was not at all justified in misreading the various documents and without any basis whatsoever, holding that the properties were large in extent and for performing the charities mentioned in the documents, the income from the properties was too much.

21. In MENAKURU DASARATHARAMI REDDI AND ANOTHER VS. DUDDUKURU SUBBA RAO AND OTHERS (AIR 1957 SC 797) relied on by Mr. Srinath Sridevan, learned Counsel for the appellant, the law is stated as follows:

"Dedication of a property to religious or charitable purposes may be either complete or partial. If the dedication is complete, a trust in favour of public religious charity is created. If the dedication is partial, a trust in favour of the charity is not created but a charge in favour of the charity is attached to and follows, the property which retains its original private and secular character.