Madras High Court
Shree Madurakavi Swamy vs The Idol Of Shri Renganathaswamy on 14 March, 2025
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
AS.(MD)No.145 of 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 12.02.2025
Pronounced On : 14.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
A.S.(MD)No.145 of 2015
1.Shree Madurakavi Swamy
Thiru Nanthavanam Trust
Rep.by its President Venkatasamy
Naidu, having its office at Mambazha
Salai, Srirangam, Trichy-6.
Venkatasamy Naidu (died)
2.Venkata Ramanujam
3.R.Jayaratchagan
Rengamanner (died)
R.Veda Vedanga Konar (died)
4.B.Ramanuja Dass
5.R.Ethiraja Sampath
6.P.Narayanasamy ... Appellants
1/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 06:24:22 pm )
AS.(MD)No.145 of 2015
Vs.
1.The Idol of Shri Renganathaswamy
Temple, Rep by its Joint
Commissioner/Executive Officer,
having his office at Shri
Renganathaswamy Devasthanam,
Srirangam, Trichy-6.
2.Joint Commissioner/Executive
Officer, Shri Renganathaswamy
Temple, Shri Renganathaswamy
Devasthanam, Srirangam, Trichy-6.
... Respondents
PRAYER : First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil
Procedure against the Judgment and Decree dated 23.12.2014 passed in
O.S.No.98 of 2009 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Trichy.
For Appellants : Mr.Raguvaran Gopalan
For R1 & R2 : Mr.M.Saravanan
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by M.JOTHIRAMAN J.)
The unsuccessful plaintiffs have preferred the present appeal.
For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as their rank
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 06:24:22 pm )
before the trial Court. The suit has been filed for recovery of the suit
property from the defendants after removing superstructure thereon and
directing the defendants to pay future mense profits and for cost.
2.Brief case of the plaintiffs is as follows:-
2.1.The first plaintiff is a Public Trust and the plaintiffs 2 to 9 and
the 2nd defendant are the Trustees of the 1st plaintiff Trust. The 2nd
defendant by virtue of its office had been co-opted as the Trustees in
pursuance of the order passed in O.P.No.134 of 1921. The suit property
and other properties originally belonged to one Madurakavi who have
created an Endowment by virtue of a Will dated 25.08.1903. Under the
said Will, he had endowed properties for the maintenance of
Nanthavanam for the supply of flowers and garlands to Lord
Renganathaswamy and other temples as well. He died shortly and
thereafter, the Trust was administered in pursuance of the terms and
conditions of the Will. One Krishnasamy Naidu and others have
executed a settlement deed on 17.04. 1914 bringing in more properties
into the Trust. There was a proceeding by the Deputy commissioner HR
& CE and vide its order dated 21.11.1978, he had directed Thiruvenkata
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 06:24:22 pm )
Ramanuja Dasar to hand over charge of the Trust and its properties. He
took the matter Commissioner HR & CE in R.P.No. 2 of 1979 and the
same was allowed on 09.01.1980.
2.2.The first defendant approached the plaintiff Trust for purchase
of the suit property with a view to construct a Guest House, vide letter
dated 21.08.2006. In pursuance of the same, the plaintiffs had submitted
necessary documents of title and possession of the suit properties. The
plaintiff delivered possession of the property only for putting up
construction. The first defendant had hurriedly put up construction in
the suit property and the defendants would not take steps for purchasing
the suit property. The plaintiff was forced to issue a notice on
15.04.2009 to the second defendant stating that the permission was
granted only for putting up construction and not to utilize the property by
opening the building. The plaintiff had also issued a notice to Tamilnadu
Electricity Board on 07.05.2009 desisting them from granting any service
connection. Thereafter, the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 19.05.2009
on the ground that the permission granted was withdrawn and calling
upon to stop construction work. The first defendant, who is also a party
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 06:24:22 pm )
to the resolution passed by the trust of the plaintiff, is estopped from
questioning the title of the first plaintiff over the suit property. The first
defendant gave a reply on 19.06.2009 containing false allegations. The
plaintiff had given a rejoinder notice on 26.06.2009. The first defendant
by virtue of his office is one of the co-trustees and therefore, it is not
open for the first defendant to question the title of the plaintiff. Under
these circumstances, construction put up by the first defendant over the
suit property is illegal and unlawful and the same have to be removed.
Hence, the suit.
3.Brief case of the first defendant is as follows:-
3.1.The plaintiffs herein have willfully and wantonly suppressed
to aver clause 5 of the Will dated 25.08.1903 in the earlier proceedings in
Trust O.P.No.134 of 1921. The charities mentioned in the Will are
associated and connected with the defendant Idol and the 1st Plaintiff
Trust is a Public Religious Trust. The first defendant Idol and the 2nd
defendant were not made parties to the proceedings in O.P.No.134 of
1921 and in R.P.No.2 of 1979 and hence any order passed in the said
proceedings will not bind the defendant Idol and will not operate as res-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 06:24:22 pm )
judicata. Under the Will dated 25.8.1903, the Founder himself has
directed the defendant to take the properties on the demise of the 8th
Executor the last but one and thus prescribed the mode of succession of
office of the Trust. Hence the order passed in Trust O.P.No.134 of 1921
altering the mode of line of succession itself is void. Since the charities
under the Will are attached with the first defendant Idol, the provisions
of Indian Trust Act will not apply. Under Will, the said Madurakavi has
appointed seven Executors to manage the property and further stated that
after his life time, the properties mentioned in the Will have to be fully
used and utilized for the Kaingaryams of this first defendant Idol, the
Executors are restrained from encumbering the property in any manner,
the suit property has to be maintained as a Nandhavanam and the
Executors have to collect the flowers and prepare garlands and adorn the
same to the Idol of Sri Renga Nachiyar, Azhwars and Achariyals, if
excess flower available and also to provide daily Amudhu from the Pala
Vritcham to this first defendant Idol daily. Thus, the properties have
been amalgamated and directed to perform charities mentioned under the
Will.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 06:24:22 pm )
3.2.The subsequent alleged settlement deed dated 17.04.1914 and
the constitution of the fresh Trust Board are void as they are against the
terms, conditions and wishes of Shreemaan Madurakavi. The first
defendant Idol alone is the sole and absolute owner of the property by
virtue of the Will dated 25.08.1903. The civil Court alone can decide the
title to the property. Without knowing the facts that the first defendant
Idol alone is the absolute and exclusive owner of the suit property, offer
was mistakenly made on 21.08.2006. The plaintiff has no right to revoke
the license as they themselves have no right over the property.
Admissions made by mistake the defendants are not estopped from
questioning the right of the plaintiff over the suit property. A proposal
was sent to the Commissioner, HR & CE under Section 34 of the Tamil
Nadu Act 22 of 1959 seeking his permission for the purchase of the suit
property. After perusing title deed and various records, the
Commissioner found that the property belonged to the Idol by his order
dated 31.07.2009 and directed the second defendant not to pay the
consideration to the plaintiff. The present Trustees were not duly
appointed by any proper forum. The first defendant Idol alone is the sole
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 06:24:22 pm )
and absolute owner of the suit property. The suit without prayer of
declaration is not maintainable in law.
4.Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following
issues:-
(i)Whether the scheme framed in Trust O.P.No.134/1921 and
order passed in Trust O.P.No.l34/1921 is valid, binding on the
defendants?
(ii)Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property as per
the terms of the Will?
(iii)Whether the defendants are estopped from claiming title to the
suit property?
(iv)Whether the defendants are entitled to take over the
management or administration of the first plaintiff trust, when the
Executive Officer/Joint Commissioner is the ex-officio trustee of the 1st
plaintiff?
(v)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of possession
of the suit property after removing the superstructure?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 06:24:22 pm )
(vi)Whether the suit for mere possession without prayer for
declaration is maintainable?
(vii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profit?
(viii)To what other relief?
5.Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff, one
Venkatasamy was examined as P.W.l and one Jeyaratchagan was
examined as P.W.2 and one Ramanujam was examined as P.W.3 and one
Ramachandran was examined as P.W.4 and one Appan Ramanujam was
examined as P.W.5 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A30 were marked. On the side of
the defendants, one Anantharaman was examined as D.W.l and Ex.B1 to
Ex.B6 were marked.
6.Findings of the trial Court:-
(i)the executors appointed by the Madhurakavi under 'Will' was
functioned till 1921. Trust O.P.No.l34 of 1921 has been filed by the same
Executors appointed by the Founder Trustee and therefore, constitution
of fresh Trust in 1921 could not be established.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 06:24:22 pm )
(ii)the beneficiary first defendant Idol has not been provided with
opportunity in O.P.No.l34 of 1921 and R.P.No.2 of 1979 and all the
orders were passed without being made the beneficiary as a party, is
cannot be valid.
(iii)the plaintiff cannot claim ownership, when the properties
handed over only for the purpose of service.
(iv)the defendants cannot claim title under this suit as they have
not made any counter claim or paying Court fee for claim, if any.
(v)the trustees are not the owner of the properties and they do not
have power to alienate the same against the wishes of the testator and
without obtaining proper permission from the Court of law.
(vi)the plaintiff neither proved the title nor sought for the relief of
declaration for title and hence, the suit for mere possession without
declaration is not maintainable.
7.The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs would submit as
follows:-
(i)The first defendant has accepted the title of the plaintiff trust
and through Ex.A5 letter dated 21.08.2006 issued by the first defendant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 06:24:22 pm )
to the plaintiff and Ex.A7 letter dated 05.10.2006 requested to sell the
un-utilized lands for construction of Yadri Nivas.
(ii)Request has already been made for obtaining permission under
Section 34 of the HR & CE Act.
(iii)The second defendant after co-option in 1958 has participated
in plaintiff trust board and cannot speak against the trust.
(iv)The first defendant commenced construction on the suit
property without permission under Section 34 of HR & CE Act. Only the
first defendant has filed written statement and the second defendant has
not filed any written statement. Therefore, even as per Ex.A1, the title of
the trust to properties is clear.
(v)By an order dated 27.10.1921 in O.P.No.l34 of 1921, wherein it
has been held that the intention of the testator under Ex.A1 was to create
a trust that would carry on the charities and has advised a method of co-
option of trustees on death or resignation of trustees. Vide Ex.A17, dated
23.09.1958, the Commissioner HR & CE has accepted the proposal of
trustees to co-opt the Executive Officer of the Temple as a trustee and has
approved the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 06:24:22 pm )
(vi)From 1980 till 2009, the second defendant has been
functioning as co-trustee.
(vii)The first defendant has not taken any steps to either challenge
order in O.P.No.l34 of 1921 dated 27.10.1921 or the order in R.P.No.2 of
1979 dated 09.01.1980 passed by the Commissioner or initiate any other
steps to recover property after 1980 till pre-suit reply notice.
(viii)A trust once created cannot be extinguished, more so a public
charitable trust, and the claim of the first defendant that the properties
would vest exclusively with it from death of last named trustee in Ex.A1
Will is legally fallacious.
(ix)Further a reading of Ex.A1 using the cy-pres doctrine would
show that had Madhurakavi intended to donate property to the Idol, and
elaborate arrangement of appointing 9 office bearers with instructions as
to manner in which properties are to be maintained and labourers to be
recompensed would be otiose. To support his contention, he has relied
upon the following judgements:-
(i)The judgement of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, reported in
AIR 1975 Cal 67 in the matter of Dhanala Karnawat & Anr, to show that
principles of Indian Trusts Act can be applied to public (or) private
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 06:24:22 pm )
religious endowments as the provisions of Section 7 of Charitable and
Religious Trusts Act and Indian Trusts Act are identical.
(ii)The judgement of this Court reported in 62 LW(22) 508 (FB)
in a case of Sankaranarayanan Iyer V. Poovananthaswami Temple,
Koilpatti, Judgment reported in 87 LW (33) 675 in a case of
Commissioner of HR & CE Vs. PR.Jagannatha Rao and Judgment
reported in 87 LW (34) 704 in a case of D.Ganesamuthuriar & Anr Vs.
Idol of Sri Sappanikaruppaswami, to show that who is a defacto trustee-
power of defacto trustee-suit for recovery possession by defacto trustee
are explained.
(iii)Judgment reported in 1929 LW (30) 574 in a case of
Sivaswami Iyer Vs. Thirumudi Chettiar and judgement reported in
(1896-97) 1 CWN 493 in a case of Srimati Mallika Dasi Vs.
RatanamaniChakervarti, to show that trustee wrongfully alienated
property-can sue for recovery of possession.
8.The learned counsel appearing for the defendant would submit as
follows:-
(i)The plaintiffs have willfully and wantonly suppressed the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 06:24:22 pm )
Clause '5' of the Will in earlier proceedings, that is, Trust O.P.No.l34 of
1921 as well as before the trial Court. The religious charities mentioned
in the Will are associated and connected with the first defendant Idol.
The first defendant Idol and the second defendant were not made parties
to the proceedings and hence, any orders passed in O.P.No.l34 of 1921
will not bind the first defendant Idol and will not operate res judicata
against the first defendant Idol.
(ii)Under the Will, the testator himself has directed the first
defendant Idol to take the properties of trust, on the demise of the last
executors and the charities under the Will are connected and attached
with this defendant Idol, the provisions of Indian Trust Act will not
apply.
(iii)Subsequent alleged settlement deed dated 17.04.1914 and the
constitution of fresh Trust Board are void as there are against the terms
and conditions and wishes of Sreeman Madhurakavi.
(iv)Neither in O.P.No.l34 of 1921 and the order passed by the
Commissioner in R.P.No.2 of 1979 in deciding the title, except civil
Court no authority can decide the title to the properties, even if decided,
the same is per-se, not title to the suit properties.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 06:24:22 pm )
(v)The plaintiffs did not furnish relevant title deeds to the
defendant and without going through the Will, offer was mistakenly
made on21.08.2006 by the first defendant Idol.
(vi)After perusing the Will, the first defendant as the owner of the
properties, has put up the construction in its property and the plaintiff is
also fully aware of the same.
9.Points for determination arises in this appeal is that
(i)Whether the executors appointed under Will dated 25.08.1903
in Ex.A1 have been restrained from encumbering the properties?
(ii)Whether the first defendant Idol has been directed to take the
properties and the Management on the death of the 8th executor under
Will?
(iii)Whether the scheme mentioned in O.P.No.134 of 1921 and
order passed in R.P.No.2 of 1979 are valid and binding on the
defendants?
Points 1 to 3:-
10.It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the first plaintiff is to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 06:24:22 pm )
be trust and the plaintiffs 2 to 9 and the second defendant are the trustees.
Under the Will, the suit properties and other property endowed for the
maintenance of Nandhavanam for the supply of the flowers and gralands
to Lord Renganathaswamy and if it is surplus, to other Temples as well.
After the death of Madhurakavi, the first plaintiff Trust was administered
in pursuance of the terms and conditions of the Will. It is also the case of
the first plaintiff that one Krishnasamy Naidu and others have executed
settlement deed on 17.04.194 bringing more properties into the trust and
a fresh Trust Board was also constituted as per scheme framed in
O.P.No.l34 of 134 of 1921 dated 27.10.1921.
11.It is the specific case of the defendant that the plaintiffs have
willfully and wantonly suppressed the recitals found in the Clause 5 of
the Will, in the earlier proceedings in O.P.No.l34 of 1921. Under the
Will, the testator himself has directed the first defendant Idol to take over
the properties, after the demise of the 8th executor.
12.It is not in dispute that the suit property is originally belonged
to one Madhurakavi, who had executed Will on 25.08.1903 in Ex.A1.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 06:24:22 pm )
The relevant portion of the Will is extracted hereunder:-
...nkw;go njhl;lq;fspy; cw;gj;jpahFk;
gytpU\q;fspd; kfR{y;fis me;je;j [hjpgyd; ehl;fspy;
=uq;fehjh; epj;jpago mKJ bra;a[k;go rkh;gpj;J
tuntz;oaJ.
...i\ xd;gJ baf;]pf;a{l;lh;fspy;
fhypahfptUtjpy; ,Uth;tiuapy; i\ ifq;fhpaj;ij
ghpghydk; bra;antz;oaJ xUth; ,Ue;jhy;; ,jpy; fz;l
brhj;Jf;Ff;fis njt];jhdj;jhh;fs; _buq;fk;
njt];jhdj;jpy; nrh;j;Jf; bfhz;L nky; fz;l jh;kq;fis
jtwhky; elj;jp bfhz;L tuntz;oaJld;
13.The executor as defined in Section 2(c) of the Indian
Succession Act, 1925, executor is a person who is appointed or named in
the last will of a deceased person, to carry out the terms and wishes set
out in the last will. Will, as per Section 2(h) of the Indian Succession
Act, means the legal declaration of the intention of a testator with respect
to his property which he desires to be carried into effect after his death.
The word “Testator”employed in Section 2(h) of the Indian Succession
Act, 1925 is defined in Order XXXI Rule 2 of the Code of Civil
Procedure as the one who makes the Will.” Legatee (or) beneficiary is a
person, who is designated to receive property/estate through the request
made by the Testator in his last will.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 06:24:22 pm )
14.It was made clear in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in S.Rathinam alial Kuppamuthu & Others Vs L.S.Mariappan & Other in
2007 (6) SCC 724, that a beneficiary under Will receives the property
only by devolution and not by transfer. The rest is therefore to ascertain
from the contents of the document, on a full reading of the same and if
necessary. A will is a legal declaration of the intention of the testator
with respect to his property, which he desires to be carred into after his
death. It is the ultimate intention of the person executing the Will, which
is of paramount importance.
15.Section 74 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, reads that it is
not necessary that any technical words or terms of art to be used in a
Will, but only that the wording be such that the intentions of the Testator
can be known therefrom. This Section is the first and foremost cardinal
principles for constitution of a Will. It is the duty of the Court to gather
the truth as the real intention of the testator on a reading of the entire
Will as a whole and also test the same in the light of surrounding
circumstances under which the testator chose to execute his Will.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 06:24:22 pm )
16.It is well settled that the Will should be read as a whole and
surrounding circumstances may be given effect to for ascertaining the
intention of the testator form the words used, in a case of Hon'ble
Supreme Court reported in 2009 (11) SCC 33 (Bhagwan Krishan Gupta
vs Prabha Gupta & Ors). The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India, in 2018 (12) SCC 1, in a case of Ranvir Dewan vs Rashmi
Khanna and another, it has been held “that intention of testator has to be
gathered primarily by reading the recitals of the Will only”.
17.Section 75 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, empowers the
Court to even take the aid of external circumstances in order to ensure
that the real intention of the maker are given full effect to. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court, in a case of Gorantla Thataiah Vs. Thotakura Venkata
Subbaiah & Others, reported in AIR 1968 SC 1332, held the following
principles for construction of Wills to be well established, namely:-
a)In constructing a document, whether in English or
in vernacular the fundamental rule is to ascertain the
intention from the words used. Surrounding circumstances
are to be considered only for the purpose of finding out the
intended meaning of the words employed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 06:24:22 pm )
b)The Court is entitled to put itself in the Testator's
armchair to construe the language of the Will, to arrive at
the right construction of the Will.
c)The Will has to be read as a whole in order to
gather the true intention of the Testator without attaching
importance to isolate expressions
d)The Court must accept a construction that would
give to every expression some effect rather than that which
would render any of the expressions inoperative. Where
one of two reasonable constructions would lead to
intestacy that should be discarded in favour of construction
which does not create any such hiatus.
e)To the extent legally possible effect should be
given to every disposition contained in the Will (Navneet
Lal alias Rangy Vs. Gokul & Others, AIR 1976 SC 794
=(1976) 1 SCC 630)
The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2007 (7) SCC 183, Bajrang
Factory Ltd & Anr. Vs. University of Calcutta, wherein it has been held
that, with a view to ascertain the intention of the testator, not only the
terms of the thereof required to be taken into consideration, but also all
the circumstances attending thereto.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 06:24:22 pm )
18.Section 82 of the Indian Succession Act enumerates that the
meaning of any clause in a Will is to be collected from the entire
instrument, and all its parts are to be construed with reference to each
other.
19.It is pertinent to state that where a general charitable intention
of the Testator is clear from the words used in a Will, and it is found
impossible to carry out that intention in the particular mode prescribed
by the testator, that circumstances would not destroy the gift to charity,
the property would have to be devoted to other religious (or) charitable
purpose according to the “cy-pres doctrine”.
20.By keeping in mind, in the above legal position of law
applying to the case on hand, on careful perusal of the recitals contained
in Ax.A1 Will shows that the testator is the owner of the properties and
he is devotee of Lord Sree Renganathaswamy and during his life time, he
was doing service to Lord Shree Renganathaswamy by supplying flowers
for adorning garlands. His only intention is that all the properties, which
he possessed till his life time, should be utilized for the kaingariyam of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 06:24:22 pm )
the Lord Renganathaswamy and after his life time, it has to be continued
for the same purpose. He had appointed nine executors, who are his
close disciples for continuing the same, after his life time. Further, the
recitals shows that the executors should pluck different variety of flowers
from the Nandavanam for making garlands and offer the same for
adorning to Lord Renganathaswamy. If any excess flowers available, it
should be given to other temples. The recitals also shows that the fruits
grown from the orchard garden should be utilized for daily amuthu for
Lord Renganathaswamy, Nachiar and for preparing pickles and also to be
utilized for the devotees, who are visiting the temple. He had appointed
the following nine executors, (i)Sreenivasaramanuja Dasar, (ii)Ramanuja
Dasar, (iii)Rengasamy Nayakkar, (iv)Perumal Dasar, (v)Appai Naidu @
Sadagoba Naidu,(vi)Periyanna Pillai @ Nambiya Pillai(vii)Vengidasalam
Pillai, (viii)Rengamannar, (ix)Vengidajaladasar.
21.It is pertinent to mention that during the course of management
and administration of the executors, one Krishnasamy Naidu and others
have executed settlement deed dated 17.04.1914 in Ex.A16 bringing in
more properties into the first plaintiff trust. It is also pertinent to mention
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 06:24:22 pm )
that in respect of first plaintiff trust, one Venkatachala Dasar alias
Venkatachala Ekanki and others have filed Trust O.P.No.l34 of 1921.
The said application was filed under Section 34 of the Indian Trust Act
seeking direction empowering them to elect the persons among Trustees.
Vide order dated 27.10.1921 in Ex.A2, it is observed that he himself was
a religious recluse without any family of his won, maintained and
conducted the charity in question with pure love of God and devotion
from his own private property dedicated under the document dated
25.08.1903 and from funds collected by him from time to time from
pilgrims and devotees in all parts of South India. In the order it is further
held that the trustees of the Srirangam Devasthanam have not been able
to maintain any one of the numerous Nandavanams dedicated to their
temple by devotees from time to time. Several such Nandavanams have
now been converted into ordinary gardens or have passed out of the
hands of the trustees by adverse possession and enjoyment of trespassers.
Further, it has been held as follows:-
I therefore, direct the petitioner Trustees to
proceed to fill up the vacancy caused by the death of one
of their Trustees and all future vacancies that might occur
in their Board of Management keeping up always the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 06:24:22 pm )
number of nine Trustees on their Board of Management
available to do the duties enjoined upon the Trustees in
the deed of Trust from out of Ekanikies like themselves or
persons leading an ascetic life without families to look
after or without any other pecuniary concern of their own
in this world.
22.Admittedly, the above said Trust O.P. has been filed by 7 out of
8 surviving executors of the said Trust and one of the trustee was shown
as respondent. The Idol Renganathaswamy or their Devasthanam have
not shown as party. It is pertinent to mention that one of the terms of the
Will dated 25.08.1903 executed by Madhurakavi was altered by
Krishnasamy Naidu through settlement deed dated 17.04.1914, which
will not binding on Idol. In the order passed in Trust O.P.No.l34 of 1921,
they have admitted that the religious nature of the trust to be performed
to the Idol. Therefore, the persons, who filed the said application, has
file an application to implead the Idol, who was necessary party to that
proceedings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 06:24:22 pm )
23.It is an admitted fact that under Ex.A3 dated 21.11.1978, the
Deputy Commissioner of HR & CE, Trichy has passed an order stating
that as per the Will dated 25.08.1903 created by Thiru.Madhurakavi, nine
persons were nominated as executors of the Will. As all the executors
nominated in the Will are no more, the Executive Officer should take
over complete management of the trust properties. Hence, the Executive
Officer is requested to take over management at once from
Thiru.Thruvengadaramanujadasar, the person now in management of the
trust. As against the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, a revision
petition was filed, which was allowed under Section 21 of the Act by
setting aside the order dated 21.11.1978 under Ex.A4 dated 09.01.1980
in Revision Petition No.2 of 1979. The executors are bound to fill up the
purpose of the Will and to obey the directions of the testator. It is
restricted that the executors should not deviated the directions given by
the testator. The trustees, who filed the trust O.P., have not proved that
the wishes of the testator could be carried out and therefore, they
wantonly implement the intentions of the testator by way of creating new
trustees. The Court's order went against the testator's wishes. Therefore,
the principles of “cy-pres doctrine” cannot be applied in this case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 06:24:22 pm )
24.It is not the case of the plaintiffs that the Late.Madhurakavi, by
his Will Ex.A1, directed that his estate, should be used for charitable
purpose and for such purpose, the property shall vest with a trust and
certain trustees were appointed in “the Will” also. When the Will of the
testator specifically laid down acts to be done and performed by the
executors and when there is no evidence to show that the same were
carried out as per wishes set out in the Will. The testator himself has
placed complete trust in the persons named as executors in the last Will,
to perform the task of representing the estate of deceased in the manner
specified.
25.It is pertinent to mention that if really, the plaintiffs treated the
second defendant as one of the co-trustees of the trust property, they
ought to have called for the meetings for the management and
administration of the trust properties all these years.
26.P.W.1 in his cross examination categorically admitted that the
nine executors appointed in the Will have not given any right to them.
He admits that if two executors are alone alive, then the suit property has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 06:24:22 pm )
to be merged with the first defendant Idol. He admits that the terms
mentioned in Ex.A16 settlement deed is differ from the terms mentioned
in Ex.A1 Will.
27.From the above evidence of P.W.1 and as per recitals of Will, it
is clear that the suit schedule property has to be merged with the first
defendant Idol, after demise of 8th executor. More over, there is no
recitals in Ex.A1, the second defendant has to be co-opt, as one of the
executors or as a Trustee. The testator has intended that on demise of 8th
executor and during the life time of 9th executor, he ought to have merge
the suit property with the first defendant Devasthanam and to continue
the charities. No line of succession has been prescribed after the life
time of executors by the testator of the “Will”, but would intend that
Devasthanam has to take the possession of the suit properties.
28.Further, the Testator stipulates that the nine executors alone to
perform service till their life time and when the 8th executor died, the
properties devolve upon the temple. He never intended to form a Trust.
His intention is to dedicate the property only to the first defendant Idol,
Lord Renganathaswamy, which is a juristic person, and he created a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 06:24:22 pm )
Nandhavanam only for exclusive purpose of adorning garlands to Lord
Renganathaswamy. The testator also intended that executors should not
alienate or encumber the property. He restricted their power only to
maintain the Nandhavanam and do service to Lord Renganathaswamy.
He has not made any authorization for line of succession. A careful
reading of recitals shows that the executors have no power to appoint
new trustees and to alienate the properties to anyone. In the light of the
above discussions, we are of the view that there is no reasons to interfere
with the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The points are answered
accordingly.
29.In the result, the first appeal is dismissed and the judgment and
decree dated 23.12.2014 passed in O.S.No.98 of 2009 on the file of I
Additional District Judge, Trichy is hereby confirmed. No costs.
(G.R.S., J.) & (M.J.R., J.)
14.03.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
gns
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 06:24:22 pm )
To
I Additional District Judge, Trichy.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 06:24:22 pm )
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
and
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
gns
Pre-Delivery Judgement made in
14.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 06:24:22 pm )
