Madras High Court

Marakannu Chettiyar Memorial vs The Superintendent Of Police on 24 April, 2023

                                                                         W.P(MD)No.2084 of 2023


                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                              DATED: 24.04.2023

                                                   CORAM :

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN

                                           W.P(MD)No.2084 of 2023
                                        and W.M.P.(MD).No.1860 of 1963

                     1.Marakannu Chettiyar Memorial
                            Charitable Educational Trust,
                     Rep. by its Trustee,
                     P.Ilango, S/o.Late.M.Ponnaiya Chettiyar,
                     Door No.8, Sevalpatti South Street,
                     Rajapalayam - 626 117,
                     Virudhunagar District.

                     2.P.Ilango

                     3.M.Shanmugavadivu

                     4.M.Rajeshwari                                      ... Petitioners
                                                       Vs.

                     1.The Superintendent of Police,
                       Virudhunagar District,
                       Virudhunagar.

                     2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
                       Rajapalayam,
                       Virudhunagar District.

                     3.The Inspector of Police,
                       North Police Station,
                       Rajapalayam.

                     4.Mr.Marakannu

                     1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                   W.P(MD)No.2084 of 2023



                     5.Ponvidhya

                     6.Murugavignesh                                              ... Respondents

                     PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
                     India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the
                     respondent police authorities to provide adequate police protection to the
                     petitioners to elect the Managing Trustee of Marakannu Chettiyar
                     Memorial Charitable Educational Trust, at the venue i.e. Marriage Hall
                     on specified dates and manage its affairs pursuant to the Judgment and
                     Decree granted by the Learned Additional Sub Court, Srivilliputhur, in
                     O.S.No. 56/2004, dated 02.03.2020.
                                        For Petitioner      : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar
                                        For Respondents    : Mr.B.Nambiselvam for R1 to R3
                                                           Additional Public Prosecutor

                                                              Mr.A.Mohan for R4

                                                              Mr.S.Santhakumar for R6

                                                              No Appearance for R5


                                                          ORDER

The writ petitioner filed this Writ Petition seeking for issuance of

Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent police authorities to provide

adequate police protection to the petitioners to elect the Managing

Trustee of Marakannu Chettiyar Memorial Charitable Educational Trust,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.2084 of 2023

at the venue i.e. Marriage Hall on specified dates and manage its affairs

pursuant to the Judgment and Decree granted by the Learned Additional

Sub Court, Srivilliputhur, in O.S.No. 56/2004, dated 02.03.2020.

2.The facts in brief:

The petitioner is the Trustee of Marakannu Chettiyar

Memorial Charitable Educational Trust. One Ponnaiya as founder formed

a Public Educational Trust in memory of his father, which was called as

the Trust as mentioned above. The Trust Deed is dated 27.01.1975.

During his life time, he was managing the above said Trust. The

Management established a Marriage Hall in one of the properties and an

Educational Institution in the name of Vallalar Illam. As per the above

said Trust deed, his legal heirs are entitled to become the Trustees after

his life time.

3.He died on 02.11.2002 leaving behind his wife, Rajeswari the

fourth petitioner, the third petitioner and the second petitioner as his legal

heirs.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.2084 of 2023

4.The fourth respondent is the eldest son of Ponnaiah Chettiyar. He

attempted to collect donations from the public and tried to grab the

property. So a suit in O.S.No.56 of 2004 was filed before the Additional

Sub Court, Srivilliputtur, claiming some relief. That was decreed on

02.03.2020 and declaration was also granted to the effect that the

property belongs to the above said Trust and a scheme was also framed,

by which, the legal heirs of Ponnaiah Chettiyar and the 3 rd defendant

Rajammal were declared as Trustees. Among them one person must be

elected as Managing Trustee. He must hold the post for three years and

he must also act as Correspondent of Vallalar Illam. On the expiry of

three years, the above said person must hand over or submit the

documents, accounts, etc. to the subsequent elected Managing Trustee. If

any dispute arises with regard to the election of the Managing Trustee

liberty was granted to the Trustees to get remedy by way of filing an

application before that Court.

5.Based upon the above said scheme decree, a notice was given on

14.09.2022 to all the trustees of the Trust informing that a meeting is

propsoed to be held on 21.09.2022. On receiving the notice

Marakkannu, the fourth respondent herein, forcibly locked the Marriage

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.2084 of 2023

Hall, where the meeting proposed to be held and the above said proposed

election was to be held. So a complaint was given on 21.09.2022 before

the third respondent. CSRNo.962 of 2022 was also issued. But, there was

no action. Later, only appeal was preferred by the fourth respondent

herein with inordinate delay of 922 days before the Principal District

Judge, Srivilliputtur on 11.10.2022, which is stated to be pending.

6.Now for executing the above said scheme decree a

representation was made to grant police protection for conducting the

above said election.

7.Heard both sides.

8.There is no dispute with regard to the Trust. It is also not in

dispute that a scheme decree was passed by the competent civil Court.

Now, the appeal with inordinate delay of 922 days alleged to have been

filed by the fourth respondent herein before the learned Principal District

Judge, Srivilliputtur. Now it is stated to be pending.

9.Now the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.2084 of 2023

per the above said scheme decree, the election must be held for electing

one of the Trustee as Managing Trustee to manage the Trust, Educational

Institutions, etc., Objection has been made by the fourth respondent and

he locked the marriage hall, where the above said proposed meeting for

election to be held.

10.The detailed counter has been filed by the fourth respondent,

who submit that as per the decree, the petitioner can workout his remedy.

An enquiry that was conducted by the third respondent based upon the

representation made by the second petitioner, was closed directing the

parties, to approach the competent civil Court. So according to him,

police protection for such a purpose cannot be extended.

11.Apart from that he also challenged the decree, which has been

passed by the trial Court. He questioned the jurisdiction of the Sub Court

to pass such a decree. According to him, as per the Trust Act, only the

District Court can entertain the suit. The Trust Deed was not properly

appreciated by the trial Court. This Bench is not competent to record any

observation or finding on the above said contentions. Since a civil Court

decree in the form of scheme has already passed, it must be taken to its

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.2084 of 2023

logical conclusion and approach.

12.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since

already decree has been passed, he got several right to execute the same.

For which, the fourth respondent cannot make any objection. Only for

limited purpose of holding the meeting for conducting the election, the

above said representation has been made. When civil Court decree is in

his favour, the third respondent is duty bound to extend the police

protection.

13.For that purpose he would rely upon the judgments made

1.in the case S.Ashokan and others Vs. State Rep. by the Commissioner

of Police, The Greater Chennai and others by this Court reported in

2015 SCC Online Mad 7111 and

2. in the case of S.J.Sujayakumari Vs. The Superintendent of Police,

Nagercoil, Kanniyakumari District and others, by this Court, made in

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.17733 of 2019, dated 28.04.2022.

14.Per contra the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would

submit that since already a representation that was made by the petitioner

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.2084 of 2023

was closed, nothing remains to be enquired.

15.Now the question which arises for consideration is whether for

the purpose of holding election as per the scheme decree, police

protection can be extended. The scheme decree itself gives relief to get

over such a situation as it has been now created by the fourth respondent

in the form of locking the marriage hall and to hold the election. Class D

of the decree reads as under.

“When there is any dispute with respect to the election of the Managing Trustee, the Trustees can have remedy by way of filing an application before this Court.”

16.It appears that the trial Court was conscious about the future

events, that is why it is taken care for the future also. When the trial

Court passed such a decree, filing of the representation to get the order of

execution is not understandable. But when I pointed out it to the

petitioner's counsel, he would submit that already there is a decree in his

favour and in view of the settled position of law as mentioned above the

police protection must be granted. But I am unable to agree this line of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.2084 of 2023

argument for the simple reason that the police protection for such event

cannot be granted. When a remedy has pointed out in class D of the

above said decree without resorting to such remedy the petitioner has

directly approached the third respondent with a request for granting