Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 4645 (MAD)

First v. Second

2011-11-28

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2011
Judgment : VINOD K.SHARMA.J., 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 34 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, with prayer to frame a scheme for due administration of the petition schedule mentioned property. 2. The petitioner submits that the schedule mentioned property is known as Charity Madam or Sivaraman Street Madam and is situated at No.1 and 2 Sivaraman Street, Triplicane, Chennai. The property was purchased by the Mandy Nagappa Chettyar, who dedicated the property for performance of the following objects: (a) Daily Pooja to the pictures of God and Godesses and the Stone idol of Pillyar installed in the Madam property: (b) Bhajans in the said Madam on Friday and Saturday and on all religious or ceremonial occasions; (c) Out of the balance of the income the performance of the Glass Planquin festival of Arulmigu Parthasarathy Swami to be conducted by and on behalf of the family every year on the 9th day of the annual Brahmothavas of Arulmigu Parthasarathy Swamy Temple in Triplicane, Chennai-600 005 3. It is the case of the petitioner that one Mr.S.Sivaraman @ Ramiah Chetty was in possession of the property, performed the obligation of the Trust. The primary grievance of thepetitioner projected in this petition is that the trustees have now decided to dispose of the Trust property and inspite of specific stipulation in the agreement that permission of the Court should be taken before sale, steps are being taken to dispose off the property without any permission. 4. The petition is opposed by respondent nos. 1 to 9 by raising question of maintainability. The stand of the respondent nos.1 to 9 is that the petitioner is not a trustee of the Trust, as he stood removed by the City Civil Court, Chennai, vide order dated 25.01.2008, passed in O.S.No.317 of 2001. This factum of the decree, removing the petitioner, is not disputed. 5. Section 34 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, under which this petition is moved, reads as under: 34. Right to apply to Court for opinion in management of trust property - Any trustee may, without instituting a suit, apply by petition to a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction for its opinion, advice or direction on any present questions respecting the management or administration of the trust-property other than questions of detail, difficulty or importance, not proper in the opinion of the Court for summary disposal. A copy of such petition shall be served upon, and the hearing thereof may be attended by, such of the persons interested in the application as the Court thinks fit. The trustee stating in good faith the facts in such petition and acting upon the opinion, advice or direction given by the Court shall be deemed, so far as regards his own responsibility, to have discharged his duty as such trustee in the subject-matter of the application. The costs of every application under this Section shall be in the discretion of the Court to which it is made." 6. The reading of the provisions of Section 34 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, clearly stipulates that the jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act, can only be invoked by a trustee and not any other person, as the general public or beneficiary, under the Trust, if aggrieved by action of the Trust, has to work out his remedy elsewhere, and not under the provisions of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that removal of the petitioner from Trust does not take away his right as a family member, therefore, he is entitled to maintain the petition under Section 34 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 as a family member to protect the property of family trust. 8. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. Once a Trust is created, whatever be the object, locus standi, under Section 34 of the Indian Trusts Act, can only be moved by a Trustee and not as family member, as contended. 9. In view of Section 34 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, no other conclusion, than the one that this original petition is not competent, can be arrived at. 10. Consequently, this original petition is dismissed as not competent. Connected original application is also closed. No costs. 11. However, it is made clear that this shall not bar the petitioner to work out ordinary Civil remedy in accordance with law, if so advised.