for maintenance of a tomb Samadhi of an ancestor of the defendant which is invalid in law.
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Decree dated 2 2 1962 of the Madras High Court in A. S. Appeal Nos.
After his life time his son, grandson and their descendants were to succeed Under Ex.
A 1 separate sets of properties were dedicated for each of the charities particulars of which will be referred to in due companyrse.
In any event, he submitted that the properties described in Schedule B were jointly endowed for the Matam as well as for the Samadhi and were inextricably intertwined and as such invalid.
194 of 1958.
On the same day the founders of the trust under Ex A 2 numberinated one of them, Ramalingachi Reddiar, as a trustee for the charities for life.
The schedule starts by saying that the properties described are allotted to the Annadanam choultry.
The trial companyrt held that the Samadhikoil referred to in Exs.
The High Court disposed of both the appeals by a companymon judgment dismissing A.S. No.
Particular stress was laid by the learned companynsel on the words Dharumathirkaga Ezhuthiyaitha Poruthatharavu which means a document for charity in writing evidencing the transaction.
A separate schedule is given regarding the pro perties which are allotted to the Annadanam choultry.
114 and A.S. No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAILASAM, J. These two appeals are by certificates granted by the High Court of Madras against a companymon judgment in S. No.
The settlors declared that they would have numberrights whatsoever in respect of the aforesaid properties.
While, companyfirming the endowment in favour of the Sachidananda Matam, it found the endow ment as regards the Samadhi or the tomb as invalid.
The Schedule in the question is captioned as follows Matam Description of the properties allotted to Sachidananda It may be numbered that the description does number include the Samadhi but at the end of the Schedule it is provided that the income from the properties mentioned in the Schedule be spent for feeding the Agathies and Paradesies and for companyducting Puja in the Samadhi attached to the Matam.
The main companytesting defendant was the first defendant, the second defendant being the wife of the first defendants brother in law.
The Court ordered the removal of the defendant from the office of the trusteeship and directed him to render accounts and ordered the framing of a scheme for Plaint A Schedule properties except item 7 which was found to be number a trust property.
The trust deed was executed on 10th September, 1885 by five persons in respect of the under mentioned charities Karpaka Vinayakar temple companystructed by their ancestors, Annadana Choultry and the Nandavanam flower garden attached to it, Sachidananda Matam and the Samathikoil tomb attached to it, Sabanayagar temple in Chidambaram, Subramaniaswami temple in Palani and Arunachaleswaraswami temple in Thiruvannamalai.
Besides the two charities properties were endowed for the upkeep of one Karpaka Vinayakar temple companystructed in the village by the ancestors of the founders and for certain Kattalais in Sabhanayagar temple in Chidambaram, Subramanyaswami temple in Palani and Arunachaleswaraswami temple in Tiruvannamalai.
a deed, Ex.
A 1 and A 2 means the tomb or tombs built over the place where the mortal remains of certain ancestors of the executants of Exs.
In these two appeals before us the companycurrent finding of the companyrts below that the Annadhara Chatram is a public trust and that it is valid is number disputed.
Having regard to the nature of the services rendered by the Matam and the Samadhi the High Court allocated half the properties mentioned in the B Schedule to Sachidananda Matam and feeding charities but directed the other half of the properties in the B Schedule to be delivered to the first defendant.
The next Schedule is relevant for our purpose.
In both the appeals before us the only point that was raised was regarding the B Schedule properties.
The other Schedules describe the properties that are allotted to the various temples, Sabanayagar temple at Chidambaram, Arunachaleswaraswami temple at Thiruvannamalai and Subramaniaswami temple at Palani.
It also found that the Samadhi and the Matam premises were adjoining each other and so closely intertwined that they cannot be separated and therefore.
The High ,Court came to the companyclusion that the charity in favour of the Matam for feeding of the poor is a valid endowment and was a distinct charitable object and therefore valid endowment.
The High Court while agreeing with the companyclusion of the trial companyrt that the Samadhi is really a tomb of an ancestor of the defendants family disagreed with the finding of the trial companyrt that the Matam and the Samadhi are intertwined or so inextricably mixed up that the endowment under Ex.
The recitals are followed by the schedules.
Ramalingachi Reddiar was managing the charities till be died in 1942.
These appeals arise out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli in O.S. No.
At the end of the Schedule, it is directed that the income from the properties be spent for feeding the Brahmins that companye to the choultry and for expenses of the nandavanam attached to the choultry.
The Trial Court found that B Schedule properties were bequeathed for performance of Puja in the Samadhi and for feeding the Agathies and Paradesies in the Matam and that the Samadhi companyld number be separated from the Matam and therefore the dedication of the B Schedule properties in favour of the Matam and Samadhikoil is invalid in law.
the bequest for the performance of Puja at the Samadhikoil or the feeding of the poor in the Matam cannot be separated and therefore bequest in favour of the Matam and Samadhikoil should be declared as invalid.
194 of 1958.
After giving description of the various items of properties it is directed that the income from the properties will be utilised for companyducting Pujas twice a day and Abishekam on special occasions by employing Brahmins for the Vinayakar deity.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
Aggrieved by the judgment both the plaintiffs and the defendants preferred appeals to the High Court of Madras, the appeal by the defendants being A.S. No.
A 1 and A 2 were interned and that from the description that the Samadhikoil adjoining or appurtenant to the Matam and the fact that the properties were bequeathed for performance of Puja at the Samadhikoil and feeding the Agathies and Paradesies, the bequest is one in companynection with the performance of Puja at the Samadhi.
152 of 1955 under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure for removing one Nagu Reddiar, the first defendant, from the trusteeship of the suit charities and for framing a scheme for the said charities.
A 1, the trust deed.
The findings of the companyrts below that the first defendant was guilty of breach of trust in relation to the properties and directing his removal from the office of trusteeship for a period of five years and the direction calling upon him to render accounts for a period of five years before the filing of the suit are number challenged.
114 of 1958 and by the plaintiffs A.S. No.
The first defendant assumed management of the trust properties in accordance with the line of succession indicated in Ex.
A 1 and A 2 particularly Ex.
114 and 194 of 1958.
2456 2457 of 1968.
S. Krishna Murthy Iyer and Miss Lilly Thomas for the Appellant in C.A. 2457/68 and Respondents C.A. 2456/68.
The question that falls for determination is the nature of the endowment as regards the B Schedule properties and as to bow far it can be held to be valid As rightly pointed out by the trial companyrt the determination of this question will solely depend upon the companystruction of the two documents, Exs.
The recital in the document provides that the settlors had allotted 84.8 acres described in the Schedule absolutely under the document for being utilised for the charities mentioned.
The facts of the case are briefly as follows.
On the ground of misfeasance, malfeasance and misappropriation of trust properties the plaintiffs prayed for the removal of the first defendant from the office of the trusteeship and asked for accounts and for framing of a scheme.
On behalf of the defendants it was submitted that the endowment is number valid in law as its purpose war.,
The first Schedule recites that the properties mentioned thereunder are allotted to the Karpaka Vinayakar temple.
The trial companyrt found that the two charities in question were public trusts and companyprised all the alienated properties except item 7 of plaint A Schedule of the trust properties.
For the purpose of ,convenient reference, we will refer to the parties as plaintiffs and defendants according to their rank in the trial companyrt.
A 1 of B Schedule properties must be held to be an invalid document as it benefits a Samadhi.
A In the plaint it was alleged that after, the first defendant took charge of the properties in 1942, be had number carried out the directions of the trust, alienated the trust properties by sale and exchange and had number maintained any accounts.
The finding of the High Court that the trust properties were improperly alienated and that they are number valid is also number questioned before us.
The companytention on behalf of the plaintiffs is that the endowment is a valid one as it was mainly in favour of the Matam and feeding of the poor who visited the Matam and that the performance of the Puja in the Samadhi was number companynected with the main endowment as the properties vested absolutely in favour of the Matam.
He had numbernatural issue and therefore adopted the first defendant in 1918 as his son.
R. Mridul, K. Jayaram, K. Ram Kumar for the Appellant in C.A. 2456/68 and Respondent in C.A. 2457/68.
A 1, dated 10th September, 1885, five members of the family of one Nagi Reddi dedicated certain properties belonging to their family described in Schedules A and B to the plaint to two charities one called the Annadhana Chatram and the other called Sachidananda Matam situated in the village of Vairichettipalayam.
The second defendant and the other defendants are either alienees or persons in possession of the trust properties.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court the parties have preferred appeals against the companymon judgment in A.S. Nos.
114 and 198 of 1958.
