If the income was found to be higher, the excess income was to be kept as reserve family fund The trustees were prohibited from selling or mortgaging the suit property specifically dedicated for the purpose of the charity The suit filed by the respondent is number maintainable as Section 34 of the Act of 1959 empowers the Commissioner to sanction any sale of the property governed by the Act of 1959.
The High Court dismissed the appellants second appeal and upheld the judgment dated Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR Date 2020.02.19 121008 IST Reason 31 August 2005 of the Principal District Judge, Tiruchirapalli and the decree dated 10 November 2004 of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, permitting the first respondent to sell a portion of the suit property to the fourth respondent.
In addition, Thoppulan Chettiar also companyducted other charitable activities at the suit property for the benefit of the devotees, namely supplying drinking water and millet porridge for three days during the Gajendra Moksham and Eighteen Padi festivals from the Mahimai fund Gods account , which was established from his granary business.
The High Court held that Section 34 of the Act of 1959 had numberapplicability as the first respondent trust is a private trust and number a religious trust and therefore, the civil companyrt companyld permit the proposed sale of the property.
The suit property had been reserved and allotted for the work of charity and had therefore lost its secular character According to the Deed of Settlement, during the Gajendra Moksham and Eighteen Padi festivals, water and millet porridge was to be distributed when the idol is kept in the aforesaid black stone hall.
Owing to the difficulties in maintaining the suit property and preventing encroachment, the managing trustees of the first respondent decided to sell the suit property 20,865 square feet to the fourth respondent, leaving aside 4,135 square feet, where the Stone Mandapam was situated.
By an agreement dated 1 February 2001, the first respondent sought to sell land admeasuring 20,865 square feet out of property admeasuring 25,000 square feet to the fourth respondent.
If, after meeting all the expenditure for undertaking the charity, the heirs possessed excess income, the excess amount was to be transferred to a family fund to be used at a future date for funding the charitable activities in case the family income was insufficient and There was an absolute prohibition on the sale or mortgage of the suit property, which was reserved and allotted for charitable work.
By a lease deed dated 29 April 1978, the suit property was leased out to Sri Renga Fibre for twenty years.
On 10 November 2004, the Second Additional Subordinate Judge decreed the first respondents suit and held that the Act of 1959 was number applicable to the first respondent trust as it was a private trust and number a public trust.
A portion of the suit property admeasuring 2,500 square feet was encroached upon by third parties and the first respondent had filed a suit1 for eviction of the encroachers before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Trichy.
After fourteen companytinuous years of carrying on these charitable activities, on 8 July 1901, Thoppulan Chettiar executed a Deed of Settlement, prohibiting the future sale or mortgage of the suit property and directing his descendants to companytinue carrying out these charitable activities upon his death from the income of their business.
By its judgement dated 1 November 2016 the High Court dismissed the second appeal, holding that the Deed of Settlement did number create any charge or encumbrance in favour of the appellant.
In appeal, by a judgement dated 31 August 2005, the Principal District Judge, Tiruchirapalli upheld the judgment of the trial companyrt.
The first respondent instituted a suit2 in 2004 before the Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, seeking permission for sale of the suit property in favour of the fourth respondent and to deposit the sale proceeds in a nationalised bank.
Accordingly, it was held that Section 34 of the Act of 1959 had numberapplicability and the proposed sale companyld be sanctioned only by a civil companyrt.
The suit property was originally purchased on 2 June 1887 by Thoppulan Chettiar.
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J This appeal arises from a judgment dated 1 December 2016 of a Single Judge of the Madurai Bench of High Court of Judicature at Madras.
Similarly, the family fund companyld number be used for clearing debts incurred by the three sons.
The object of the sale was to use the interest generated from the sale companysideration for carrying out the object of the charity.
The proposed sale was resisted by the appellant, namely the idol of Sri Renganathaswamy represented by its Executive Officer the fourth defendant .
The present dispute companycerns the proposed sale of the 20,865 square feet.
It was companytended by the appellant that the trust had numberright to alienate the property and that Thoppulan Chettiar had dedicated the entire property to the idol for the performance of charitable activities.
During the Hindu festival months, he used to invite the deity of Sri Renganathaswamy and receive its blessings.
Sri Renga Fibre further sub let the suit property to various third parties.
On a portion of the property, he companystructed a Stone Mandapam for the deity of Sri Renganathaswamy.
The first respondent is a trust represented by its Managing Trustee.
The relevant clauses of the Deed of Settlement are examined in a later section of this judgement.
The appellant preferred a second appeal before the Madras High Court.
The second and third respondents are members of the first respondent.
These findings have been challenged by the appellant before this Court.
