Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1820 (MAD)

A. Pitchumani Chettiar v. Vasanthakumari

2019-07-05

R.PONGIAPPAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : R. Pongiappan, J. 1. Both the appeals are directed against the common Judgment and Decree passed in A.S. Nos. 103 and 104 of 2006, on the file of the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli. The appellant Pitchumani Chettiar is the 1st respondent in both the appeals. S.A. (MD) No. 217 of 2009: 2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree, dated 14.04.2008 passed in A.S. No. 104 of 2006, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli, which was filed against the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S. No. 470 of 1996, on the file of the learned District Munsif, Lalgudi, dated 20.03.2006. 3. Before the trial Court/the appellant Pitchaimani Chettiar and the 2nd respondent Natarajan Chettiar filed a suit as against the other respondents and seeking the relief of declaration, declaring that the plaintiffs are the managing trustees of the properties and for the consequential relief of mandatory injunction, directing the defendants 1 to 3 and 5 to receive Kists for the suit lands only from the plaintiff for the Fasli 1403 and for the latter Fasli and to issue receipts. In the suit they further prayed for the relief of direction, directing the defendants except the 1st defendant to pay Rs. 5000/- towards damages for the mental suffering and agony caused to them by not collecting the kists in respect of the suit lands. 4. By Judgment and Decree, dated 20.03.2006 the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Lalgudi, partly decreed the suit, declaring that the 1st plaintiff is the managing trustee of the properties, in respect to mandatory injunction, the 1st plaintiff alone liable to pay the kist to the suit properties. Aggrieved over the said findings, the 6th defendant in the suit Vasanthakumari preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 104 of 2006, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli. The learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli, by Judgment and Decree, dated 15.04.2008, after elaborate enquiry allowed the appeal and set aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court. Ultimately, she dismissed the suit; Feeling aggrieved over the same, the 1st plaintiff in the suit Pitchaimani Chettiar is before this Court with this Second Appeal. S.A. (MD) No. 218 of 2009: 5. Ultimately, she dismissed the suit; Feeling aggrieved over the same, the 1st plaintiff in the suit Pitchaimani Chettiar is before this Court with this Second Appeal. S.A. (MD) No. 218 of 2009: 5. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree, dated 15.04.2008, passed in A.S. No. 103 of 2006, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli, which have been filed against the Judgment and Decree, dated 20.03.2006, passed in O.S. No. 1350 of 1995, on the file of the learned District Munsif, Lalgudi. 6. Earlier, this respondent Balamurali Krishna filed the above suit and seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant, his men and servants from in any manner interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit 1st Item and in collecting the rents in respect to suit Item No. 2 from the 2nd defendant and for costs. 7. The learned District Munsif, Lalgudi in its Judgment and Decree, dated 20.03.2006 dismissed the suit. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S. No. 103 of 2006, on the file of the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli. The learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, after elaborate enquiry allowed the appeal and granted the decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for by the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved over the same, the defendant in the suit is before this Court with the present Second Appeal. 8. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as, as described before the trial Court. 9. The averments set out in the plaint in O.S. No. 470 of 1996 is as follows:- (i) The dry lands bearing Survey No. 90/1 and 90/5, measuring 0.35.0 and 0.30.0 hectare with a well in registration Sub District of Srirangam, in the Taluk of Lalgudi Village No. 29/1, S. Kannanur (West) Village are the trust properties. The name of the trust is "The Thandavan Chettiar Family Private Trust." The said properties have been endowed for the performance of Thirukkan Mandagapadi during the 5th Vazhinadai Ubayam to Arulmighu Samayapuram Mariamman Idol. (ii) Before the creation of trust, one Thandavan Chettiar had six sons viz. (i) Pothi Chettiar (ii) Chidambaram Chettiar, (iii) Alagu Chettiar, (iv) Thangasamy Chettiar, (v) Manickam Chettiar and (vi) Krishnan Chettiar. (ii) Before the creation of trust, one Thandavan Chettiar had six sons viz. (i) Pothi Chettiar (ii) Chidambaram Chettiar, (iii) Alagu Chettiar, (iv) Thangasamy Chettiar, (v) Manickam Chettiar and (vi) Krishnan Chettiar. From them, the said (i) Chidambaram Chettiar, (ii) Alagu Chettiar, (iii) Manickam Chettiar and (iv) Krishnan Chettiar, are all entered in the partition on 08.12.1932 in which the schedule mentioned properties were set apart for the purpose of conducting Charity like feeding the poor during the 5th Day Vazhinadai Ubayam and on the Car festival of Chittirai every Tamil New Year at Samayapuram. (iii) Subsequently, revised registered Trust Management Agreement, dated 09.09.1959 was entered into the 1st and 3rd sons of the Thandavan Chettiar and the sons of second, fourth, fifth and sixth of Thandavan Chettiar. Under the deed of Management, it was agreed that each branch should be managed the Trust by rotation of one year. It was also agreed that the lands at Samayapuram Village, building bearing Municipal Door No. 448 of Big Bazaar Street and land bearing Survey No. 81/5 at Lalgudi and Pudukkudi are to be managed only by the plaintiffs. The husband of the 4th defendant is a signatory in the above deed, which is binding upon the 4th defendant. The land tax assessment at present stands in the name of Chidambaram Chettiar, who was the then eldest member of the family and his name was mentioned for assessment purposes, in the revenue records. As per the revised Registered Trust Management Agreement, dated 09.09.1959, Managing Trustee, Alagu Chettiar was vested with the powers to collect rent, pay the Municipal and Panchayat taxes, etc., and take legal action, if necessary. The said Alagu Chettiar died on 30.05.1992 leaving behind the 1st plaintiff, who is the only legal representative. As per the trust deed, the office of hereditary trusteeship devolves on first plaintiff. (iv) On 28.06.1993 in R.C.A. No. 18/1989, the plaintiff was impleaded and substituted in the place of his deceased father. The 2nd plaintiff is the son of Pothi Chettiar one of the son of Thandavan Chettiar. So he is also entitled to manage the trust by rotation. The other three sons of Thandavan Chettiar by name, Thangasamy Chettiar, Manickam Chettiar and Krishnan Chettiar were died. Their sons have agreed to the scheme of Management as per the agreement, dated 09.09.1959. The 2nd plaintiff is the son of Pothi Chettiar one of the son of Thandavan Chettiar. So he is also entitled to manage the trust by rotation. The other three sons of Thandavan Chettiar by name, Thangasamy Chettiar, Manickam Chettiar and Krishnan Chettiar were died. Their sons have agreed to the scheme of Management as per the agreement, dated 09.09.1959. The right of management, which was available to Thiyagarajan Chettiar, cannot be given to the minor sons till they attain majority. On 27.02.1995, plaintiffs 1, 2 and sons of Thangasamy Chettiar, Manickam Chettiar and Krishnan Chettiar revised the suit trust by Family Management Agreement, dated 27.02.1995, in which, the second plaintiff has been nominated as Joint Management Trustee, (v) The plaintiffs were not called by the third defendant to pay the land tax in respect of the suit properties for the Fasli 1405. It was informed by the third defendant that the tax was paid by the fourth defendant. In spite of notice, the defendants 1 to 3 did not send any reply. The fourth defendant refused to receive the notice. Therefore, the plaintiffs were put up mental agony and harassment owing to the negligence on the part of the defendants 1 to 3. So, the plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs. 5000/- as damages. Hence the suit. 10. The brief averments made in the written statement filed by the 4th defendant in O.S. No. 470 of 1996 are as follows:- (i) The suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party viz. T. Balamuralikrishna, who alone is the sole exclusive trustee of the private trust in question. On the sole ground the suit is liable for dismissal. This defendant right through represented her then minor son the said Balamuralikrishna while discharging the obligations enjoined by the private trust founded originally and latter conducted by her father-in-law then by her husband and during minority of the said Balamuralikrishna by this defendant assisted by first plaintiff acting as her agent. It was only when the first plaintiff became hostile and acted detrimental, the suit was filed originally in District Munsif Court, Trichy in 1994 by the said Balamuralikrishna represented by this defendant as guardian and now continued by Balamuralikrishna himself getting himself declared major and the same is pending in O.S. No. 1350 of 1995. It was only when the first plaintiff became hostile and acted detrimental, the suit was filed originally in District Munsif Court, Trichy in 1994 by the said Balamuralikrishna represented by this defendant as guardian and now continued by Balamuralikrishna himself getting himself declared major and the same is pending in O.S. No. 1350 of 1995. The claims and contentions of the said plaintiff in that suit may be read as part of this written statement. The said suit is part-heard. (ii) The alleged mental agony in para 10 of the plaint is false and imaginary. The allegation that this defendant's husband was signatory to the alleged subsequent trust document is absolutely false and in any event it will not bind the sole trustee Balamuralikrishna. As stated earlier, this suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party and misjoinder of party viz. this defendant. There cannot be a prayer for declaration as Managing Trustee, having regard to averments in the plaint unless other persons as plaintiffs themselves claim are made parties to the suit. Having regard to the plaint allegations the suit as framed is not maintainable. The prayer is also not in accordance with Specific Relief Act. The frame of suit the plaintiffs filing the suit individually seeking a relief of declaration in the name of such trust is defective and as it not maintainable. The plaintiffs are not at all trustees much less managing trustees and have never associated with the same in such capacities. The claim is wholly false and fraudulent. The suit is liable to be dismissed with costs. 11. The averments made in the plaint in O.S. No. 1350 of 1995, in brief, are as follows:- (i) Thandavan Chettiar had four sons (1) Chidambaram Chettiar (2) Alagu Chettiar, (3) Manikkam Chettiar and (4) Krishnan Chettiar. They entered into a registered partition on 08.12.1932. The vessels and cooking utensils mentioned as item 4 in the schedule of properties set apart for charity purpose of feeding poor during Panguni last and commence of Chitrai every Tamil year at Samayapuram by inviting the deity Goddess 'Mariamman' to the Mandapam, which is described as item No. 1 property. The property described in item No. 2 is a non-residential building. The income fetched from the said building to be utilised for performing the poor feeding and meeting the expenses in connection with receiving deity at the said place. The property described in item No. 2 is a non-residential building. The income fetched from the said building to be utilised for performing the poor feeding and meeting the expenses in connection with receiving deity at the said place. The aforesaid four brothers had agreed to conduct the said Charity in turn and having felt that the income might not be sufficient for the purpose to meet the expenses personally as well. It had been agreed that the said Chidambaram Chettiar, being the eldest member, shall retain vessels for the purpose of cooking and the charity should be performed regularly. It happened till the life time of the said Chidambaram Chettiar, who died in 1956 and none of the younger brothers ever conducted the aforesaid Charity observing the rotation prescribed in the deed of partition, because it involved an additional burden for them. (ii) The Chidambaram Chettiar being conscious of his obligations was conducting the Charity till his life time. The other three brothers had not participated in the charity right from 1932 to 1956. Till the death of other three brothers, they did not associate themselves in performance of the said Charity. After the death of Chidambaram Chettiar, his third wife Soundaram Ammal, till 1978, along with her, adopted son viz., Thiagarajan @ Nandhakumar, father of the plaintiff conducted the Charity. After the demise of the said Thiyagarajan @ Nandakumar in the year 1970, the plaintiff is conducting the Charity represented by his mother and next friend, till date. The 1st defendant is the sons of Alagu Chettiar, the immediate younger brother of late Chidambaram Chettiar. Owing to untimely death of plaintiff's father and on account of his close relationship with plaintiff's mother, he offered to help and assist the plaintiff's mother in the continued performance of the Charity in the manner in which it has been done. (iii) The 1st defendant had suddenly departed from his activities and has been attempting to claim unfounded rights in respect of the suit Charity. He has collecting rents from the 2nd defendant from the time when he comes to assist the plaintiff's mother and misused the same for his own purposes. The 1st defendant had also created a scene and attempted to prevent the plaintiff to conduct the Charity. He has collecting rents from the 2nd defendant from the time when he comes to assist the plaintiff's mother and misused the same for his own purposes. The 1st defendant had also created a scene and attempted to prevent the plaintiff to conduct the Charity. Even the Will executed by his grandfather on 21.05.1954, bears testimony to the fact that the suit Charity has been exclusively managed and conducted by the testator till his death. The 1st defendant has no right to collect rent from the 2nd defendant or prevent the plaintiff's performance of the Charity. Therefore, he has to be restrained. 12. The averments made in the written statement in O.S. No. 1350 of 1995, filed by the 1st defendant and adopted by the 2nd defendant, in brief, are as follows:- (i) In fact, the deceased Thandavan Chettiar had six sons viz. Pothi Chettiar (1) through his first wife, Chidambaram Chettiar (2), Alagu Chettiar (3), Thangasamy Chettiar (4), Manickam Chettiar (5) and Krishnan Chettiar (6) through his second wife. Thandavan Chettiar died intestate before commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and hence, the properties left behind him were divided by metes and bounds between the sons 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 respectively by two partition agreements, the first was on 26.03.1923 (between first wife's son and second wife's sons) and the second vide Deed No. 3356 of 1932, dated 08.12.1932 amongst 2nd wife's sons but the 4th son Thangasamy Chettiar was extricated from inheritance of his father's property, since he was taken in adoption by Arunachalam Chettiar, younger brother of Thandavan Chettiar. (ii) All the properties divided were the self acquired properties by Thandavan Chettiar. Thandavan Chettiar himself never allotted any property as trust property. (ii) All the properties divided were the self acquired properties by Thandavan Chettiar. Thandavan Chettiar himself never allotted any property as trust property. While entering into the partition deed, dated 08.12.1932, all the four brothers had voluntarily created a private trust in which 'I' Schedule was set apart as Trust property, with the direction that the income accrued should be spent for worship of Goddess Mariamman at Samayapuram on two occasions in each year and poor feeding on those days and necessary account should be maintained by the Trustees, who conducts the above and hand over the account to his next trustees in turn and the balance amount, if any, in each year on 10th Panguni (Tamil Year) and that all the founders and their male heirs alone are entitled to conduct the above Charity for obvious purpose under the above arrangements between themselves in turn. All the other trustees should joint with the trustee-in-charge. (iii) Since a female cannot perform any spiritual functions, especially, to the Goddess Mariamman, the family Goddess of the above family members, and with the fear and consequences going to be met with by the family members at large in the years to come the power to conduct Charity has been restricted to male heirs only. One of the founders and senior member then alive and father of the 1st defendant had contributed Electricity service connections to the newly constructed buildings and such service connections stand in the name of "Alagu Chettiar" in the records of Electricity Board, including deposits. Chidambaram Chettiar himself was suffering from heart decease and died of heart attack in 1956. His turn of Charity was asked to be carried out by his brother Alagu Chettiar, who died only on the year 1992 May 30th at the age of 95 years. Krishnan Chettiar died on 03.11.1960 whereas Manickam Chettiar died in the year 1954 itself. Hence, the averment that the other brothers later died and till their death they did not associate themselves in performance of the said Charity are denied as false and concocted. Krishnan Chettiar died on 03.11.1960 whereas Manickam Chettiar died in the year 1954 itself. Hence, the averment that the other brothers later died and till their death they did not associate themselves in performance of the said Charity are denied as false and concocted. (iv) After the demise of the last founder and father of the 1st defendant in 1992, the Charity for the year 1993 was performed by Krishnamoorthy Chettiar S/o Manickam Chettiar in turn, plaintiff's mother came with Goondas on the Charity Day and made an ugly, pugnacious, cantankerous and offensive scene in public and at last, the Charity was allowed to be conducted with much difficulty. This made the Trust Management Committee to call for an urgent meeting and passed a Resolution, dated 24.04.1993 unanimously and accordingly, the Charity will be allowed to be conducted by the plaintiff only after his attaining majority, subject to the agreement of the other trustees. The Will dated 21.05.1994 is nothing to do with the trust properties. Being a beneficiary and legal heir of Alagu Chettiar, the 1st defendant has every right to conduct the Charity as per his turn and the question of trespass does not arise. Being the Managing Trustee, the 1st defendant got the right to collect rent from the 2nd defendant and other tenants. Hence, the relief prayed for by the plaintiff cannot be entertained. 13. Based on the above pleadings, the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Lalgudi, framed necessary issues and tried the both suits along with O.S. No. 80 of 1997 filed by one Natarajan Chettiar and others. 14. Before the trial Court, during the time of trial, the plaintiff in O.S. No. 1350 of 1995 examined himself as PW-1. He examined one more witness viz. Vasanthakumari as PW-2 and marked 3 documents as Exs. A1 to A3. On the side of the defendants, the 1st defendant in O.S. No. 1350 of 1995 examined himself as DW-1 and he examined one Natarajan as DW-2 and marked 64 documents as Ex. B1 to B64. 15. Having considered all the materials placed before him, the learned District Munsif, Lalgudi, by Judgment and Decree, dated 20.03.2006, partly allowed the suit i.e. O.S. No. 470 of 1996 and granted the decree as the 1st plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration and mandatory injunction as prayed for. B1 to B64. 15. Having considered all the materials placed before him, the learned District Munsif, Lalgudi, by Judgment and Decree, dated 20.03.2006, partly allowed the suit i.e. O.S. No. 470 of 1996 and granted the decree as the 1st plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration and mandatory injunction as prayed for. On the other hand, he dismissed the suit viz., O.S. No. 1350 of 1995 with a direction that the plaintiff is a heir of Thiyagarajan @ Nandakumar is entitled to perform charity in rotation as detailed in Ex. B51, Trust Deed, dated 08.12.1932 and Ex. B.55, Trust Management Agreement, dated 09.09.1959 with the co-operation of the other trustees. 16. Aggrieved over the said findings, respective aggrieved parties filed appeals in A.S. No. 103 of 2006 and A.S. No. 104 of 2006, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli. After elaborate enquiry, the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli in its Judgment dated 15.04.2008 had allowed both the appeals and set aside the Judgment passed in O.S. No. 470 of 1996 and O.S. No. 1350 of 1995. Ultimately, the suit in O.S. No. 470 of 1996 is dismissed and O.S. No. 1350 of 1995 is decreed. Against the said findings, the appellants are before this Court with the present Second Appeal. 17. Since both the appeals are arise out of a Common Judgment, for disposing of both the appeals, at the time of admission, this Court has formulated the following Substantial Question Law, for consideration:- “1. Whether the Judgment and Decree of the 1st Appellate Court is right in allowing the appeals when the respondent has been totally estopped from denying the truth and validity of Ex. B55 in view of the statutory Bar as contemplated under Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act? 2. Whether the Judgment and Decree of the 1st appellate Court could be sustained in view of the appreciation of fact regarding the Judgment reported in 2002 (4) LW 370 which is not applicable to the facts involved in the appeals that too, when the appellant has not taken any stand against the interest of trust? 3. Whether the 1st Appellate Court is right in come to the conclusion that Ex. B55 is not maintainable in the eye of law? 4. 3. Whether the 1st Appellate Court is right in come to the conclusion that Ex. B55 is not maintainable in the eye of law? 4. Whether the 1st Appellate Court has properly explained the findings of the Lower Court before reversing its order?” Substantial Question of Law No. 1. 18. It is an admitted fact that under the partition deed Ex. B51, dated 08.12.1932 four sons of Thandavan Chettiar viz., Chidambaram Chettiar, Alagu Chettiar, Manickam Chettiar and Krishnan Chettiar had created a family trust under the name and style of Thandavan Chettiar Family Trust. The choultry situate at S. Kahnanur Village wherein the deity of Samayapuram Mariamman were brought and Poojas to be performed. In addition to that, poor people to be feeded. All the four sons of the said Thandavan Chettiar shall perform the Charity in rotation from and out of the income fetched from the 2nd item of the property, which is a non-residential building situate in the Big Bazaar Street, Tiruchirappalli. In respect to the recitals found in Ex. B51 has been categorically admitted by both the parties and there is no dispute with regard to the same. 19. On the other hand, the trust created under Ex. B51, dated 08.12.1932 was revised and modified by an instrument Ex. B55, dated 09.09.1959. The said revised trust deed Ex. B55 pave a way for entry of some other branches of the family. Further, the original trustees found in Ex. B51, dated 08.12.1932 viz. Alagappan Chettiar and Krishnan Chettiar have signed as parties to it. More than that, the father of the plaintiff has also signed as 4th party in the said revised trust deed Ex. B55. Further, the Ayan Nanja Thoppu property has also included as a trust property to the charity purposes. 20. At this juncture, it is relevant to extract the crux of Ex. B55, Trust Deed, dated 09.09.1959, which reads as follows:- xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 21. In fact, after the execution of Ex. B51, Trust Deed, dated 08.12.1932, the said Chidambaram Chettiar died in the year of 1956 and thereafter none of his younger brother and other 3 brothers ever conducted the above said Charity after observing the rotation prescribed in the deed of partition. Only thereafter, the Trust Management Agreement, now marked as Ex. B55 was entered in between sons and grandsons of Thandavan Chettiar and registered as Doc. No. 74/1960. Only thereafter, the Trust Management Agreement, now marked as Ex. B55 was entered in between sons and grandsons of Thandavan Chettiar and registered as Doc. No. 74/1960. In the said agreement, apart from the property mentioned in Ex. B51 one more property was inducted as Trust property. 22. It is the contention raised by the defendants that since the father of the plaintiff as a party to the document, his son Balamuralikrishna is estopped in raising objections against the purpose mentioned in Ex. B55. In respect to this submission it is necessary to see Section 115 of Indian Evidence Act, which reads as follows:- 115. Estoppel - When one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing. 23. Now applying the said provision with the case in our hand, a recital in a deed or other instrument is no doubt in some cases conclusive, and in all cases evidence, as against the parties who make it, and it is of more or less weight or more or less conclusive against them according to circumstances. In fact, where the deed described that the condition was a particular category and the parties dealt with on that basis, it is not open to the parties to deviate from that position. 24. In this case also, since the father of the plaintiff (O.S. No. 1350 of 1995) is a party to the document, who accepted the conditions enumerated in Ex. B55, now, according to Section 115 of Indian Evidence Act, he has estopped from raising objections against the recitals found in Ex. B55. The Substantial Question of Law No. 1 is answered as above. Substantial Question of Law Nos. 2 to 4: 25. B55, now, according to Section 115 of Indian Evidence Act, he has estopped from raising objections against the recitals found in Ex. B55. The Substantial Question of Law No. 1 is answered as above. Substantial Question of Law Nos. 2 to 4: 25. The First Appellate Court when at the time of disposing the appeal by referring the Judgment of this Court reported in 2002 (4) LW 370 and came to the conclusion that when a line of succession to the trust is prescribed in the partition deed, then it cannot be changed by a subsequent document; particularly, in the subsequent document the legal heirs of other sons who have gone out of the original family on adoption then their legal heirs cannot come to the original family as legal heirs and claim right in the properties. Ultimately it was held by the 1st appellate Court that since in Ex. B55, which is subsequent to original partition deed Ex. B51 including strangers as a trustee are not maintainable before law. 26. It is true, in the Judgment reported in 2002 (4) LW 370 in which it was held that if there is no, provision in any of the document for revocation of the trust and there is no question of beneficiaries consenting to the revocation of trust it is settled that the trustees does not have the right to sell the trust property. Applying the said principle with the case in our hand, in this case Ex. B55 Trust Management Agreement is created only between the legal heirs of Thandavan Chettiar by including the legal heirs of adopted son. However, it is to be noted in Ex. B55 one more property was added as a trust property and then only they are all entered into an agreement only for fulfilling the object of the trust created through Ex. B51. 27. In other wise, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that for any purpose without any specific provisions for revocation or alteration the terms and object of the Trust cannot be changed. He relied on the Judgment of our Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Sri Agasthyar Trust, Madras vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras 1998 (5) SC 588 in which, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in Paras 14 to 16 as follows:- 14. He relied on the Judgment of our Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Sri Agasthyar Trust, Madras vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras 1998 (5) SC 588 in which, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in Paras 14 to 16 as follows:- 14. As we have already observed, the Deed of 1941 originally gave the power to the founders to revoke the Trust but this power was taken away by a subsequent document which was executed on 26th August, 1943. It is thereafter that the Trust became an irrevocable Trust. The powers of the trustee in respect of the said Trust continued to remain the same as set out in Clause (8) of the partnership deed which has been extracted hereinabove. The said trustee was only required to carry out the objects of the Trust and spend the Trust funds for charitable purposes in the manner indicated therein. No power was given to the trustee to amend, alter vary or change in any manner the objects of the Trust as created in 1941. The result of this is that neither the trustee nor the founders could bring about any change in the objects of the Trust as set out in their partnership deed dated 28th November, 1941. This being so, the document dated 1st July, 1944 executed by the trustee was clearly without any authority and was non est. He had no right or jurisdiction to execute the document of 1st July, 1944 which in effect changed the objects of the Trust radically and in fact converted what was meant to be a public charitable trust to a non-charitable trust as held by this Court in East India Industries Case when the Deed dated 1st July, 1944 was construed by it. It will be useful at this juncture to refer to the following passage from Tudor on Charities (6th Edn.). At page 131, it is stated as follows: “When a charity has been founded and trusts have been declared the founder has no power to revoke, vary or add to the trusts. This is so irrespective of whether the trusts have been declared by an individual, or by a body of subscribers, or by the trustees.” 15. At page 131, it is stated as follows: “When a charity has been founded and trusts have been declared the founder has no power to revoke, vary or add to the trusts. This is so irrespective of whether the trusts have been declared by an individual, or by a body of subscribers, or by the trustees.” 15. When, the founders of the trust have no power to alter or vary the terms of the Trust a trustee appointed to manage the properties of the Trust for securing its object can under no circumstances be regarded as having such a power specially when the original deed dated 28th November, 1941 does not bestow such power on him. Such a question also came up for consideration before the Madras High Court in Thanthi Trust vs. Income-Tax Officer. Dealing with the question whether founder of a Trust had power to revoke the same, at page 284-85, this Court observed as follows: “It is well established that the subsequent acts and conduct of the founder of the trust cannot affect the trust if there has been already a complete dedication. (Vide Krishnaswamy Pillai vs. Kothandarama Naicken, Sunder Singh Mallah Singh Sanatan Dharam High School Trust, Indaura vs. Managing Committee, Sunder Singh Mallah Singh Rajput High School Indaura and Gokuldas Jumnadas and Co. vs. Lakshminarasimha Chetti. If a valid and complete dedication had taken place, there would be no power left in the founder to revoke and no assertion on his part or the subsequent conduct of himself or his descendants contrary to such dedication would have the effect of nullifying it. If the trust had been really and validly created, any deviation by the founder of the trust or the trustees from the declared purposes would amount only to a breach of trust and would not detract from the declaration of trust, therefore, the subsequent conduct of the founder in dealing with the funds of the trust long after the creation of the trust may not put an end to the trust itself.” 16. We are in full agreement with the principle stated in the aforesaid passage and we hold that the trustee had no authority or jurisdiction to execute a fresh Trust Deed and the document dated 1st July, 1944 is of no consequence and is no more than a scrap of paper. We are in full agreement with the principle stated in the aforesaid passage and we hold that the trustee had no authority or jurisdiction to execute a fresh Trust Deed and the document dated 1st July, 1944 is of no consequence and is no more than a scrap of paper. The Trust as originally established by the Deed dated 28th November, 1941 remained unchanged or unaffected by the later document dated 1st July, 1944. 28. So, according to the verdict of our Hon'ble Apex Court, the Trustee had no Authority or jurisdiction to execute the fresh trustee deed. However, in the same Judgment, it was held as any deviation by the founder of the Trust or trustee from the declared purposes would amount only to breach of trust and would not detract from the declaration of trust. So, it is obvious that fresh Trust cannot be created by altering the declared purposes. But, in this case, the factual aspect is entirely different. The recitals in respect to object of trust found in Ex. B51 was further improved through Ex. B55. In fact, Ex. B55 Trust Management Agreement is not having any difference in respect to the object of trust. In respect to the purposes for which the trust was created the purpose in the manner indicated was not changed in Ex. B55. 29. In this occasion it is relevant to see the evidence given by DW-2 Natarajan, who is the newly impleaded party in Ex. B55. He has stated in his cross-examination that they attempted to sell the trust properties. He has further stated that for selling the said property, an original petition has been filed before the District Court and the same was dismissed. The said evidence shows that after including the said Natarajan as a member, he had attempted to alienate the trust property. Hence, the principle laid down in the Judgment reported in 2002 (4) LW 370 is squarely applicable to the case in our hand. The relevant portion of the Judgment reads as follows:- “Person who has dealt with the property as if it is his own forfeits his right - person who has taken a stand against the interest of the Trust cannot be allowed to have a right of management. The relevant portion of the Judgment reads as follows:- “Person who has dealt with the property as if it is his own forfeits his right - person who has taken a stand against the interest of the Trust cannot be allowed to have a right of management. Whether or not dedication is complete would naturally be a question of fact to be determined in each case in the light of the material terms used in the document. In such cases, it is always a matter of ascertaining the true intention of the parties, it is obvious that such intention must be gathered on a fair and reasonable construction of the document considered as a whole. The use of the word 'trust' or 'trustee' is no doubt of some help in determining such intention but the mere use of each words cannot be treated as decisive of the matter.” 30. Even though the said principle laid down as above is applicable to the facts of this case, in this aspect, it is necessary to see the Judgment rendered by the trial Court. In paragraph 37 of the said Judgment it was clearly held that the resolution nominating the Natarajan Chettiar as Joint Managing Trustee is an unilateral resolution. It would also not in accordance with Ex. B51 and Ex. B55. The other resolution to remove the plaintiff from the trust is also not valid under law. The trustees cannot go beyond the two registered instruments, Ex. B51 and Ex. B55. Ultimately, the trial Court decided that the second plaintiff cannot seek any declaration as prayed for and further held that the 1st plaintiff Pitchumani Chettiar is alone competent to pay kist to the suit properties. In fact, the 1st appellate Court without seeing the said findings and accepted the evidence given by Natarajan Chettiar. 31. So, I am of the view that the Judgment reported in 2002 (4) LW 370 is not applicable to the facts involved in the appeals, since the appellant has not taken any stand against the interest of Trust. In otherwise, while at the time of disposing the appeal, the First Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the object of the trust would be defeated, if Ex. In otherwise, while at the time of disposing the appeal, the First Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the object of the trust would be defeated, if Ex. B55 is came into force, for which the trial Court has' clearly gave an answer and only in respect to the 1st plaintiff in O.S. No. 1350 of 1995, the relief was granted. In this occasion, no doubt, the 1st appellate Court has not properly explained the findings of the trial Court before reversing the Judgment of the trial Court. The Substantial Questions of Law Nos. 2 to 4 are answered accordingly. 32. In view of the forgoing reasons, the Second Appeals are allowed and the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S. Nos. 103 and 104 of 2006, by the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli, dated 15.04.2008 are set aside. The Judgment and Decree passed in O.S. No. 470 of 1996 and O.S. No. 1350 of 1995, on the file of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Lalgudi, are holds good and the findings arrived by the trial Court are restored. However, there shall be no order as to costs.