Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

30.2. In this regard, the learned Advocate General would submit that, mere possessory right is enough to make an application to the second respondent under Rule 6 of the Development Control Rules. The Court can presume under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, especially illustration (e) of Section 114 that, existence of certain facts can be presumed that the judicial and official acts have been regularly performed.

46. Though it was vehemently contended by A-Group counsels supporting the cause of the petitioners that, the part of the property belongs to the said late Dr.M.A.M.Ramaswamy since has been bequeathed in favour of the petitioner trust by virtue of the Will, dated 18.02.2015 and the moment the said Will is executed by the said M.A.M.Ramaswamy in favour of the petitioner trust, as per Section 211 of the Indian Succession Act, the property is vest with the petitioner trust and therefore, in order to protect the said property, the petitioner can act upon by filing the present writ petition opposing the move made by the fourth respondent to have the proposed https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis construction of the multi storied building, for which the impugned planning permission was given by the CMDA, this Court feels that, the B-Group lawyers, in order to meet the said arguments of the other side, has quoted Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, which says that, no right as executor or legatee can be established in any Court of justice, unless a Court of competent jurisdiction in India has granted probate of the Will, under which the right is claimed or has granted letters of administration with the Will or with a copy of an authenticated copy of the Will annexed.

47. Therefore it is purely a legal question to be decided by the competent Civil Court, after adducing evidence by both sides, as to whether the A-Group is entitled to get relief under Section 211 of the Indian Succession Act or the B-Group can succeed under Section 213 of the said Act.

48. However the fact remains that, as on date, the situation of getting a probate or a letter of administration has not arisen since the O.P to get https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis probate filed by the petitioner trust since has been contested by the fourth respondent, it has become Testamentary Original Suit and is pending consideration before the original side of this Court.

...

...

...

117.Clause 19 of the Deed of Indenture, dated 14.03.1957, stipulates that any resolution to be passed by the plaintiff Trust in C.S.No.198 of 2016 shall be decided by majority of the Trustees present at the meeting and the decision of the majority shall be final. However, the lease deed, dated 29.10.2015 in favour of the sixth defendant Society in C.S.No.223 of 2021 does not refer to any resolution passed by the majority of the Trustees of the plaintiff Trust in C.S.No.198 of 2016. Section 48 of the Indian Trust Act, though not applicable to a public trust, also stipulates that co~trustees cannot act singly and when there are more Trustees than one, all must join in the execution of the Trust, except where the instrument of Trust otherwise provides. Therefore, on a prima facie consideration, this Court will have to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis necessarily accept the resolution, dated 10.08.2012 passed by the plaintiff Trust in C.S.No.198 of 2021 deciding to develop the suit C schedule property, as the said resolution has been signed by all the then Trustees of the plaintiff Trust in C.S.No.198 of 2016."