Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

26. Thus it is clear that the intention of Paramasiva Thevar is to dedicate the administration and management of the Trust to one of his son Ramalingam and his descendants. The said Paramasiva Thevar died on 26.10.1986. The surviving trustee of Paramasiva Thevar was Ramalingam and he died on 17.12.1990. The said Ramalingam did not arrive at any mechanism for the administration and management of the Trust during his lifetime. Hence, the recitals of settlement deed (Exhibit P1) executed by Suththa Chaithanya Swamigal should be read in conjunction with the Will https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis executed by Paramasiva Thevar (Exhibit P2) to arrive at a conclusion about the administration and management of the said Trust. By the strength of both the documents, wife of Ramalingam, one Lakshmi, the petitioner and her son Paramasivam accepted the trusteeship of Ramalinga Swamigal Madam on the death of Ramalingam. While so, on 07.10.2014, Lakshmi Ramalingam executed a registered Will bearing document No.19 of 2014 with respect to the administration and management of Ramalinga Swamigal Madam. The operative portion of the said Will is extracted as follows:

32. Thus, there is a bar in Section 47 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 for the trustee to delegate his office or even to delegate his duties either to co-trustee or to a stranger.

33. In view of the provisions of Sections 46 and 47 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, the covenants of the Will executed by R.Lakshmi bearing document No.19 of 2014 of Thirupuvanam Sub-Registry does not hold good. Having admitted that her eldest son had accepted the trusteeship of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Ramalinga Swamigal Madam along with her, the said Paramasivam cannot do away with his trusteeship without the permission of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. That apart, as provided in Section 46 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, there is no material evidence to show that the said trustee Paramasivam executed any contract or resolved any resolution along with the surviving trustee, that is, his mother Lakshmi disclaiming his trusteeship during her lifetime.

34. Further in terms of the settlement deed executed by Suththa Chaitanya Swamigal only the elders amongst the legal heirs of the descendants of Paramasiva Thevar shall administer the Madam. The Will executed by Paramasiva Thevar envisages that, his eldest son Ramalingam and his descendants shall administer the Madam from time to time. If the said settlement deed and the Will of Paramasiva Thevar is read conjointly, this Court is able to arrive that, the acceptance of Trusteeship by R.Lakshmi and the eldest son of Ramalingam, namely, Paramasivam on the death of Ramalingam is in consonance to the intention of the founders of the Trust. But her intention of removing her eldest son Paramasivam from Trusteeship and appointing her son-in-law Velmurugan, the second petitioner herein is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis against the Will and the spirit of the founders of the Madam and none of these aspect of disclaimer of trusteeship by Paramasivam was established by Lakshmi as P.W.1., while deposing her evidence in Trust O.P. Rather insisting on her right to seek the permission of the Court to sell away the trust property, when there is a bar that a trustee cannot delegate his office or his duties either to co-trustee or to a stranger, the appointment of Velmurugan to take the office of trusteeship after the death of Mrs.Lakshmi, doing away with the trusteeship of the surviving trustee Paramasivam is not legally sustainable. In furtherance to that, Section 48 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 mandates as follows:

“(i) The second petitioner may be directed to effect the necessary amendments in the short cause-title and long cause-title of the Trust O.P, reflecting that he is representing the Ramalinga Swamigal Madam.

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

(ii) The second petitioner is directed to implead the surviving sole Trustee, that is the eldest son of Ramalingam and R.Lakshmi, namely, Paramasivam either as third petitioner or as the respondent as per his convenience.