NAGU REDDIAR Vs. BANU REDDIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are by certificates granted by the High Court of Madras against a common judgment in A. S. No. 114 and A. S. No. 194 of 1958.

(2.) These appeals arise out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli in O. S. No. 152 of 1955 under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure for removing one Negu Reddiar, the first defendant, from the trusteeship of the suit charities and for framing a scheme for the said charities. The trial court found that the two charities in question were public trusts and comprised all the alienated properties except item 7 of plaint-A Schedule to the trust properties. The trial court found that B-Schedule properties were bequeathed for performance of Puja in the Samadhi and for feeding the Agathies and Paradesies in the Matam and that the Samadhi could not be separated from the Matam and therefore the dedication of the B Schedule properties in favour of the Matam and Samadhikoil is invalid in law. The court ordered the removal of the defendant from the office of the trusteeship and directed him to render accounts and ordered the framing of a scheme for plaint A Schedule properties except item 7 which was found to be not a trust property. Aggrieved by the judgment both the plaintiffs and the defendants preferred appeals to the High Court of Madras, the appeal by the plaintiffs being A. S. No. 114 of 1958 and by the defendants A. S. No. 194 of 1958. The High Court disposed of both the appeals by a common judgment dismissing A. S. No. 114 subject to the modification of the decree of the lower court that the first defendant would be liable to render accounts in respect of the trust properties only for six years prior to the date of the suit and not for the entire period of his management as ordered by Sub-Judge. The High Court allowed the appeal in A. S. No. 194 of 1958 in part holding that item 7 of the plaint A Schedule properties was also part of the trust properties. It also found that alienations of items 4, 7, 8 and 15 of B-Schedule properties were not valid or binding on the trust. Differing from the trial court, it held that the Matam and the Samadhikoil were not inextricably mixed up and that the endowment for Sachidhananda Matam was a valid endowment. The High Court allocated half the properties mentioned in the B Schedule to the Sachidananda Matam and feeding charity and directed that the other half of the B Schedule properties should go to the first defendant because it related to the Puja in the Samadhi, the endowment for which purpose not being valid. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court the parties have preferred appeals against the common judgment in A. S. Nos. 114 and 194 of 1958. For the purpose of convenient reference, we will refer to the parties as plaintiffs and defendants according to their rank in the trial court.

(3.) The facts of the case are briefly as follows:By a deed, Ex. A-1, dated 10th September, 1885 five members of the family of one Nagu Reddi dedicated certain properties belonging to their family described in Schedules A and B to the plaint to two charities one called the Annadhana Chatram and the other called Sachidananda Matam situated in the Village of Vairichettipalayam. Besides the two charities, properties were endowed for the upkeep of one Karpaka Vinayakar temple constructed in the village by the ancestors of the founders and for certain Kattalais in Sabhanayagar temple in Chidambaram, Subramanyaswami temple in Palani and Arunachalaswami temple in Tiruvennamalai. On the same day the founders of the trust under Ex. A-2 nominated one of them, Ramalingachi Reddiar, as a trustee for the charities for life. After his lifetime his son, grandson and their descendants were to succeed. Under Ex. A-1 separate sets of properties were dedicated for each of the charities particulars of which will be referred to in due course. Ramalingachi Reddiar was managing the charities till he died in 1942. He had no natural issue and therefore adopted the first defendant in 1918 as his son. The first defendant assumed management of the trust properties in accordance with the line of succession indicated in Ex. A-2. In the plaint it was alleged that after the first defendant took charge of the properties in 1942, he had not carried out the directions of the trust, alienated the trust properties by sale and exchange and had not maintained any accounts. On the ground of misfeasance, malfeasance and misappropriation of trust properties the plaintiffs prayed for the removal of the first defendant from the office of the trusteeship and asked for accounts and for framing of a scheme. The main contesting defendant was the first defendant, the second defendant being the wife of the first defendant"s brother-in-law. The second defendant and the other defendants are either alieness or persons in possession of the trust properties.