Sree Narayana Trust vs Sree Narayana Dharma Sanghom ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 9044 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                     PRESENT
                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
         WEDNESDAY, THE 23rd DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 1ST BHADRA, 1945
                               RFA NO. 799 OF 2014
  AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 12.08.2014 IN OS 225/2005 OF
                        PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, ATTINGAL
APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS 1 & 2:
     1     SREE NARAYANA TRUST, SN TRUST BUILDING, KOLLAM,
           REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY.

     2        THE GENERAL SECRETARY, SN TRUST,
              SN TRUST BUILDING, KOLLAM.

              BY ADVS.A.N.RAJAN BABU
              A.R.EASWAR LAL
              P.GOPALAKRISHNAN


RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:
     1     SREE NARAYANA DHARMA SANGHOM TRUST, SIVAGIRI,
           VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY SWAMI
           RITHAMBHARANANDA, AGED 60 YEARS, SANYASIN BY GENERAL
           SECRETARY, SREE NARAYANA DHARMA SANGHOM TRUST,
           PIN-695141.                    (SUBSTITUTED)

              RESPONDENT IN RFA 799/2014 IS SUBSTITUTED AS FOLLOWS VIDE
              ORDER DATED 17/08/2023 IN IA 1/2023 IN RFA 799/2014

              SREE NARAYANA DHARMA SANGHAM TRUST, SIVAGIRI, VARKALA,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY SWAMY SUBHANGANANDA
              SANYASIN, THE GENERAL SECRETARY, SREE NARAYANA DHARMA
              SANGHOM TRUST.

              BY ADVS.V.JAYAPRADEEP
              SRI.S.SHIBU KUMAR
              SRI.T.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI
              SRI. G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)


     THIS     REGULAR   FIRST    APPEAL   HAVING     COME   UP    FOR   HEARING    ON
23.08.2023,    ALONG    WITH    CO.139/2018,   THE    COURT      ON   THE   SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 RFA No.799 of 2014 &
Cross Objection No.139 of 2018          2



                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                      PRESENT
                     THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
           WEDNESDAY, THE 23rd DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 1ST BHADRA, 1945
                                 CO NO. 139 OF 2018
                      RFA 799/2014 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
CROSS APPELLANT/RESPONDENT IN RFA/PLAINTIFF IN O.S No.225/2005:
           SREE NARAYANA DHARMA SANGHAM TRUST, SIVAGIRI, VARKALA,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY,
           SREE NARAYANA DHARMA SANGHAM TRUST.

               BY ADVS.V.JAYAPRADEEP

                          SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)


RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS IN RFA/DEFENDANTS IN OS. No.225/2005
     1     SREE NARAYANA TRUST, SN TRUST BUILDING, KOLLAM,
           REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL SECRETARY, PIN - 691 001.

       2       THE GENERAL SECRETARY, SN TRUST,
               SN TRUST BUILDING, KOLLAM - 691 001.

               BY ADV A.N.RAJAN BABU


       THIS CROSS OBJECTION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.08.2023,
ALONG WITH RFA.799/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 RFA No.799 of 2014 &
Cross Objection No.139 of 2018           3




                                     JUDGMENT

This appeal is by the defendant against the decree and

judgment of the trial court in a suit for recovery of

possession with mesne profits of the plaint schedule

property. The plaint schedule property was originally

purchased in the name of Sree Narayana Guru, under Ext.A1

title deed. While so, Sree Narayana Guru executed Ext.A2

registered Will pertaining to the assets bequeathing the

same to the principal disciple/follower Swami Bodhananda

with a further recital to the effect that he should hold

and enjoy the property during his lifetime and after his

death, the property will devolve on the members of the

"Sanyasi Sabha" at Sivagiri Madom. A suit was filed

subsequently after the demise of Sree Narayana Guru and

also Swami Bodhananda for framing scheme in

O.S.No.127/1954, that is subsequent to Ext.A3 document. By

that time, Ext.A3 document was executed by the Madathipathi RFA No.799 of 2014 &

and Secretary of the Sanyasi Sabha based on the decision of

general body meeting in which the entire plaint schedule

property was given to the defendant/trust which stands in

the name of Sree Narayana Guru. The trust was constituted

by Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam founded by Sree

Narayana Guru. During his lifetime he had constituted and

founded two organizations, one is for spiritual upliftment

by establishing Sree Narayana Dharma Sanghom, the plaintiff

herein, and the other is for social upliftment by name Sree

Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam (for short, SNDP Yogam),

in which he was the founder president.

2. The dispute involved in the present case pertaining

to the plaint schedule property is centering around mainly

on three documents. The first one is Ext.A3, a registered

udambadi executed by the madathipathi and Secretary of Sree

Narayana Dharma Sanghom trust, the plaintiff herein, in

favour of the defendant - Sree Narayana Trust (for short,

S.N.Trust), by which the entire right, title and interest

over the property was given and entrusted with the RFA No.799 of 2014 &

defendant for the purpose of establishing an educational

institution with the right to possess and enjoy the

property and to construct building and permanent structures

for the commencement of educational institution, i.e, a

college and also with the right to mutate the property in

the name of defendant and to pay tax. This would clearly

show that what is given to the defendant with respect to

the plaint schedule property is the full and complete

right, title and interest over the property by way of a

registered document for the specific purpose to start an

educational institution, a college, in that property by the

defendant. It is recited in the document that the plaintiff

and the SNDP Yogam had taken a decision to constitute and

create a public trust in the name of Sree Narayana Guru for

starting and maintaining educational institutions run by

SNDP Yogam and accordingly, a trust was created in the name

of Sree Narayana Guru, the defendant herein. It is in

furtherance of creation of the trust, all the schools,

colleges run by SNDP Yogam were entrusted with the said

trust, the defendant. That is also made mentioned in Ext.A3 RFA No.799 of 2014 &

document. It is also stated in the document that they have

taken a decision to commence a college at Varkala and

entrusted the defendant/trust to do necessary arrangement

for starting a college at Varkala. It is for that purpose,

the plaint schedule property was given to the defendant

with full ownership, right, title and interest with the

right to mutate the property in the name of defendant and

to pay property tax in its name and to start a college in

that property, for which a decision was taken at the 24 th

general body as resolution No.32 dated 23/02/1127 ME. It

is in furtherance of that decision, the abovesaid document

was executed, by which, the entire, right, title, interest

and enjoyment along with possession was given to the

defendant with the right to mutate the property in its name

and to pay tax, to hold, possess and enjoy the property

with all liberties and privileges and to construct building

and other permanent structure for the purpose of

commencing a college and hostel with all facilities with

the following conditions:

RFA No.799 of 2014 &

(1) There shall be one representative from the

plaintiff to the board of trust of defendant.

(2) If it is found not feasible to conduct any

educational institution in the property or stoppage

of any such educational institution, the

defendant/trust will stand bound to remove all the

building constructed over the property or in the

alternative, to vacate the premises along with the

property by receiving 2/3rd of cost of construction

from the plaintiff.

(3) The defendant/trust will have every right to

improve the property by planting trees and protect

the property exclusively as its own without having a

right of alienation of property to strangers.

3. These are the three conditions incorporated in

Ext.A3 document, in which condition No.2 would come into

play only when it was found not feasible to conduct an

educational institution in that property or stoppage of

conduct of educational institution. No such contingency had RFA No.799 of 2014 &

arisen so far. Ext.A3 document is related back to the year

1953. Admittedly, in furtherance of Ext.A3 document,

buildings were constructed by the defendant in that

property and started educational institution upto the level

of Pre-Degree and it is very much admitted by the plaintiff

in the subsequent document, Ext.A4 and also in the plaint

itself. Later on, the college was upgraded by including

degree and post-graduation courses and it is functioning

smoothly.

4. The second and third documents relied on by the

plaintiff are the scheme settled in a subsequent suit by

the court for the administration of the plaintiff and the

election of "Sanyasi Sabha", in which the defendant/trust

is not a party. The defendant/trust is constituted for

establishing educational institution and managing and

maintaining it, as such, it has got a separate entity and

it is rather admitted by the plaintiff and also discernible

from the fact that the plaintiff has opted to file a suit

against the defendant (a legal entity), the trust.

Admittedly, the defendant is not a party to the scheme suit RFA No.799 of 2014 &

of the year 1954 (O.S.No.127/1954). In fact, the

defendant/trust has no business whatsoever with the

administration of plaintiff or the scheme settled for its

administration. The scheme settled in that suit would not

bind on the defendant mainly on three reasons, firstly, the

property was conveyed to the defendant prior to the

abovesaid suit, secondly, the defendant/trust is not a

party to the said suit and hence has no binding force

against the defendant regarding the scheme or the decree

passed, thirdly, on the reason that the defendant is a

separate legal entity, a trust created and it has no

business whatsoever in the matter of administration of

plaintiff. Hence, the argument advanced by the plaintiff

that the earlier document, Ext.A3, will stand bound by the

scheme settled for administration of plaintiff cannot be

sustained. The scheme settled in the subsequent suit for

the administration of the plaintiff and election of sanyasi

sabha has nothing to do with the affairs of defendant/trust

or the property, which was earlier entrusted with the trust

with its full ownership, title and enjoyment for the RFA No.799 of 2014 &

specific purpose for which, the trust was created i.e. to

commence, maintain and run educational institution. The

clause incorporated in Ext.A3 not to alienate the property

should be understood with the purpose for which the trust

was created and the property was given. Hence, both the

plaintiff and defendant would stand bound by the earlier

registered deed, Ext.A3 and the conditions incorporated

therein. So far, no suit was filed challenging the

validity of Ext.A3 registered deed of transfer or right,

title or interest over the property. Now almost 70 years

have elapsed. In fact, the plaintiff did not have any such

contention challenging Ext.A3 document, but only canvassed

an argument that the subsequent document, Ext.A4, would be

valid and Ext.A3 document would stand bound by the scheme

settled for the plaintiff in a subsequent suit. As

discussed earlier, the scheme settled in a subsequent suit

governing the administration of plaintiff will not have any

binding force to the transfer already effected over the

property in the year 1953 by a registered document, Ext.A3,

which was acted upon by the donee, the defendant by RFA No.799 of 2014 &

constructing building and starting a college in that

property.

5. The third document relied on by the plaintiff is

Ext.A4 executed by the Secretary of the plaintiff

unilaterally without the juncture of defendant/trust, by

which the very same clauses included in Ext.A3 were

incorporated with an additional clause for payment of rent

(premium) @ Rs.200/- to the plaintiff by the defendant/

trust so as to appear that what is given under Ext.A4 is

only a mere permission or licence or a lease arrangement.

It is a document executed by the plaintiff unilaterally

without the juncture of the defendant. Admittedly, the

defendant never paid any amount by way of premium at any

point of time and that is very much pleaded and admitted in

the plaint itself. Hence, Ext.A4 though registered, being a

unilateral one by the plaintiff, unless accepted and

consented to by the defendant, may not have any binding

force against the defendant. Necessarily, Ext.A4 document

will not give any assistance to the case advanced by the

plaintiff. Even the trial court had entered into a finding RFA No.799 of 2014 &

that Ext.A4 document is a unilateral one executed by the

plaintiff without the juncture of the defendant, but

ventured to go further and found that Ext.A4 is binding on

the defendant simply on the reason that the stamp paper,

which was used for the making of Ext.A4 was purchased in

the name of the defendant. The said finding of the trial

court is so perverse and no one can be mulcted with any

liability simply because of the reason that the stamp paper

for the making of the document was purchased in the name of

that person. It is not a bilateral agreement, but only a

unilateral agreement. The mere fact that the stamp paper

used for making Ext.A4 was purchased in the name of

defendant by itself will not create any binding force,

unless the agreement is signed or consented to by the

defendant or accepted by the defendant in furtherance of

its execution or on a later point of time, for which also,

no evidence was adduced worth the name. A unilateral

document can be executed by a person having right, title or

interest over the property by giving or transferring or

donating the same or any part thereof or any limited right RFA No.799 of 2014 &

by way of lease, licence etc. and it is permissible, but it

should be by the person holding such right over the

property. When the right is already parted with a third

person, any document executed unilaterally pertaining to

the said property would stand not binding on the owner of

the property with whom the right, title and interest was

earlier parted with. The fact that the stamp paper was

purchased in the name of the person, who is not a party to

the document would not make him bound by the document,

unless he is a consenting party or a signatory to the

document. Admittedly, defendant is not a party or signatory

to Ext.A4.

6. Yet another reason is also available to non-suit

Ext.A4 as it was executed by the plaintiff after the

execution of Ext.A3 document, a registered deed, by which,

all right, title and interest over the property including

right of possession and enjoyment, right of mutation and

payment of tax and right to construct building and to

improve the property with all liberties and privileges were

given as against the whole world and released fully and RFA No.799 of 2014 &

completely the title, right and interest over the property,

but subject to three conditions enumerated therein. None of

the said conditions were violated at any point of time and

no such case was also advanced. On the other hand, Ext.A4

document and the recital therein admits Ext.A3 document and

the title, interest and enjoyment and possession given with

all liberties and privileges given to the defendant and the

possession taken over by the defendant, various

construction made over the property for the purpose of

commencing a college and commencement of a college at the

level of Pre-Degree and the ongoing construction of other

buildings for the purpose of elevating the college to the

status of Degree level and Post-Graduation by the

defendant. So far no suit was filed either to challenge

Ext.A3 or the disposition of property under that document

to the defendant/trust.

7. Ext.A4 document suffers yet another material defect

as it was executed by the prior owner of the property after

parting with right, title and interest over the same. In

fact, at the time when Ext.A4 document was executed RFA No.799 of 2014 &

unilaterally by the plaintiff, they were not holding any

right, title or interest over the property so as to impose

any other restriction in the enjoyment of property or

condition other than the one covered by the deed of title,

Ext.A3. In fact, the plaintiff was incompetent to execute

Ext.A4 unilaterally at that time over the property, which

is the subject of Ext.A3 transfer in favour of the

defendant. There is no re-transfer of property after Ext.A3

so as to enable the plaintiff to impose or exercise the

right of an owner over the property. No contingency as

enumerated under Ext.A3 document had arisen at any point of

time so as to enable the plaintiff to get a cause of

action. In fact, no such case was even raised or pleaded.

So the exercise of right under Ext.A4 by the plaintiff

unilaterally after parting with all the right over the

property under Ext.A3 will not get any legal sanctity.

8. Some of the documents, the communication between the

plaintiff and defendant pertaining to the functioning of

the trust may not get any relevance in the dispute

involved, unless the same admits binding nature as mandated RFA No.799 of 2014 &

under Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, since the

value of property comes to more than Rs.100/-, hence cannot

be incorporated either in substitution, alteration or in

addition to the clauses/conditions included in Ext.A3

registered document. The oral evidence tendered suffers

the very same infirmity and hence, pales into

insignificance.

9. The contention of the appellant that the subsequent

clause No.1 to 3 incorporated in Ext.A3 being repugnant to

the disposition of property under the document will not get

any legal sanctity, cannot be accepted because the property

was given for a specific purpose to a trust with the

ultimate aim of promoting education. Necessarily, there

should be a clause not to use the property for any purpose

other than the one for which the property was given and in

that event, to get back the property, hence cannot be

treated as a condition repugnant to the disposition under

the document. But that clause would operate only when the

purpose for which the property was given became not

feasible or came to an end either by the stoppage of RFA No.799 of 2014 &

educational institution or in any other manner. No such

contingency had arisen in the case in hand. In fact, there

was no cause of action for the plaintiff to institute a

suit of this nature for getting recovery of the property

after the same has been entrusted with the trust with full

right, title and interest, unless the contingency had

arisen as provided in the document, Ext.A3 giving a cause

of action for the suit. Necessarily, the decree granted by

the trial court cannot be sustained and the suit is liable

to be dismissed. The Cross Objection raised as against the

quantum arrived at regarding the premium based on Ext.A4

cannot be sustained.

10. At the fag end, the learned counsel for the

plaintiff as well as the defendant fairly submitted that

the scope of a settlement in the matter between the parties

may be left open since all these three institutions, the

plaintiff, the defendant and the SNDP Yogam are functioning

under the legacy of renowned Vishwa Guru - "Sree Narayana

Guru", hence left open.

RFA No.799 of 2014 &

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The decree and

judgment of the trial court are set aside and the suit is

dismissed without ordering costs of suit or appeal. The

Cross Objection is dismissed.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE

DMR/-