VASUDEVA RAO Vs. C K RANGAI GOUNDER MANAGING TRUSTEE OF SRI KONIYAMMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit out of which this appeal arises was for a declaration of the plaintiff's title and right of management as well as for recovery of possession, of the suit house together with past and future rent or damages by way of use and occupation. The Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore has held that the plaintiff is entitled to the property claimed by him with all the rights of management of the said property; but the relief for possession was disallowed. There is a further direction that the plaintiff is entitled to collect the rents from such of the defendants as are occupying portions of the suit house and utilise the funds for the ceremonies stipulated in the will of Ranoji Rao. There were directions regarding deposit of rent by the second to the fourth defendant along with the order to pay future rent at the same rate. Other minor reliefs were awarded to the plaintiff which it is not necessary to mention in detail. The first defendant has appealed against that decision of the learned Subordinate Judge and the second defendant has filed a memorandum of cross-objections against that portion of the decree which went against his contentions.

(2.) The basis of the plaintiff's title is that he has been appointed as the managing trustee of Sri Koniamman Devasthanam by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board and as such he is entitled to ask for the relief claimed by him in the plaint. The first defendant is said to he the nearest heir of Ranoji Rao who was originally the owner of the property. On the 25th October 1918, Ranoji Rao executed a will by which he made certain bequests and the question for consideration is whether that will created a trust so far as the bequests are concerned. It is common ground that Ranoji Rao's wife Parvathi Bai who was a legatee of some of the items died only in July 1943. The plaintiff states that the widow Parvathi Bai was in possession and enjoyment of the suit house according to the provisions of the will and died in July 1943. Before her death she had leased out portions of the house to defendants 2 to 4 separately. The first defendant is the son of Parvathi Bai's sister and as stated in the plaint he got into possession of the properties after the death of Parvathi Bai and is managing the same. Though the plaintiff, as the managing trustee of Sri Koniamman Temple to which the property has been dedicated in the will, demanded from the first 'defendant such possession as he was entitled to have, he sent a reply repudiating the will and containing false allegations. Therefore the plaintiff prayed that as the trustee of Sri Koniamman Devasthanam he is obliged to file a suit for declaration of title & recovery of possession of the suit house. The Hindu Religious Endowments Board has granted him sanction to file the suit by its order dated 21st October 1943.

(3.) The first defendant's plea as set forth in the written statement is that the plaintiff has no cause of action and that there was no dedication or creation of a trust by Ranoji Rao and consequently on his death and on the death of his widow Parvathi Bai, the property must, in law, be held to have passed to the heirs of Ranoji Rao. Therefore, neither the Koniamman Devasthanam nor the Hindu Religious Endowments Committee nor any trustee, has any manner of right to the suit property and as such the plaintiff's claim for possession was unsustainable. The alternative case set up by the first defendant was that even on the footing that the properties have been allotted for religious and charitable trusts, Parvathj Bai was the sole person entitled to the management thereof and in the absence of any provision for the management of the charities made by the founder, after Parvathi Bai's lifetime, the right of management passes on to the heirs of the founder, especially as before the death of Parvathi Bai, the Taluk Devasthanam Committee named in the will has ceased to exist. Therefore in any event there has been an intestacy in respect of the suit property and the major portion of the income. In any view of the case it was contended that as there has been an intestacy in respect of the suit property and the major portion of the income barring the sums directed to be spent for specified purposes, the property should, in law, be deemed to have passed to the heirs of Ranoji Rao subject to a charge for the performance of specific charities. Defendants 2 to 4 who were tenants of the suit property were willing to pay the rent into Court and they further said that during the lifetime of Parvati Bai they had paid all the rent to her.