Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 06:24:22 pm ) judicata. Under the Will dated 25.8.1903, the Founder himself has directed the defendant to take the properties on the demise of the 8th Executor the last but one and thus prescribed the mode of succession of office of the Trust. Hence the order passed in Trust O.P.No.134 of 1921 altering the mode of line of succession itself is void. Since the charities under the Will are attached with the first defendant Idol, the provisions of Indian Trust Act will not apply. Under Will, the said Madurakavi has appointed seven Executors to manage the property and further stated that after his life time, the properties mentioned in the Will have to be fully used and utilized for the Kaingaryams of this first defendant Idol, the Executors are restrained from encumbering the property in any manner, the suit property has to be maintained as a Nandhavanam and the Executors have to collect the flowers and prepare garlands and adorn the same to the Idol of Sri Renga Nachiyar, Azhwars and Achariyals, if excess flower available and also to provide daily Amudhu from the Pala Vritcham to this first defendant Idol daily. Thus, the properties have been amalgamated and directed to perform charities mentioned under the Will.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 06:24:22 pm ) 3.2.The subsequent alleged settlement deed dated 17.04.1914 and the constitution of the fresh Trust Board are void as they are against the terms, conditions and wishes of Shreemaan Madurakavi. The first defendant Idol alone is the sole and absolute owner of the property by virtue of the Will dated 25.08.1903. The civil Court alone can decide the title to the property. Without knowing the facts that the first defendant Idol alone is the absolute and exclusive owner of the suit property, offer was mistakenly made on 21.08.2006. The plaintiff has no right to revoke the license as they themselves have no right over the property. Admissions made by mistake the defendants are not estopped from questioning the right of the plaintiff over the suit property. A proposal was sent to the Commissioner, HR & CE under Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959 seeking his permission for the purchase of the suit property. After perusing title deed and various records, the Commissioner found that the property belonged to the Idol by his order dated 31.07.2009 and directed the second defendant not to pay the consideration to the plaintiff. The present Trustees were not duly appointed by any proper forum. The first defendant Idol alone is the sole https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 06:24:22 pm ) and absolute owner of the suit property. The suit without prayer of declaration is not maintainable in law.

(ii)Under the Will, the testator himself has directed the first defendant Idol to take the properties of trust, on the demise of the last executors and the charities under the Will are connected and attached with this defendant Idol, the provisions of Indian Trust Act will not apply.

(iii)Subsequent alleged settlement deed dated 17.04.1914 and the constitution of fresh Trust Board are void as there are against the terms and conditions and wishes of Sreeman Madhurakavi.