AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramachandra Iyer, J.—This is an appeal against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Madurai in O. S. No. 105 of 1951. The plaintiffs
are the appellants. The suit out of which this appeal arises was one for possession of the plaint A schedule properties from the respondents and for
subsequent mesne profits and in case it was held that the appellant had no title to maintain the suit, to pass a decree in favour of Sri Kallalagar
Soundararaja Perumal through its Executive Officer. The Devastanam was the seventh defendant to the suit but was not made a party to the
appeal.
One Mooka Konar was the owner of items 2 and 3 of the suit properties. He died in the year 1914, leaving him surviving his mother Ammalu
Ammal and two widows bearing the same name, namely, Pechi Ammal. For the purpose of convenience we shall refer to the two widows as
senior and junior Pechi Ammal. It would appear that during the lifetime of Mooka Konar he had an idea of establishing an endowment in
connection with the temple of Soundararaja Perumal of Alagar Koil near Madurai, familiarly known as Sri Kallalagar. One of the important
festivals of that temple takes place during the Chitra Pournami Day of every year, i.e., the day of the Full month in the month of Chitrai (April and
May) when the deity is taken from Algar Koil to the Madurai Town and the festival is conducted on the sands of the Vaigai River. Ammalu Ammal
and the two widows of Mooka Konar made arrangements to fulfil his wishes. The former purchased a site for putting up a Mandapam or a
pavilion for the purpose of receiving the deity and conducting the worship. On 14th March, 1917, by Ex. A-1, Ammalu Animal and the senior
Pechi Ammal with the concurrence of the junior Pechi Ammal executed a settlement deed creating a trust over the properties comprised therein for
erecting a pavilion on the site purchased, which is item 1 of the plaint A schedule, for the reception of the idol of Sri Soundararaja Perumal when it
was carried in procession during the Chitra Pournami Utsavam. The settlement provided for the conduct of the worship of the deity on the
mandapam to be put up on the aforesaid site out of the income to be received from items two and three of the properties. Under that document the
settlors appointed one Periakaruppa the father of the appellants as the trustee. It was provided that Periakaruppa should construct the mandapam
or pavilion out of the income from the properties endowed and that he and his heirs should perpetually conduct the charities as trustees.
Periakaruppa did not construct the mandapam as directed, and in course of time ceased to manage the properties. Ammalu Ammal and the senior
Pechi Ammal had died sometime prior to 1922. The junior Pechi Ammal who alone represented the founder stepped into possession of the
properties and proceeded to provide for its management. On 13th April 1922 she executed Ex. B. 1 appointing one Solaimalai Kone as a trustee.
That document recites that on the failure of Periakaruppa to perform his obligations the Junior Pechi Ammal was entitled to possession of the
properties and that Solaimalai Kone had put up the mandapam and that he should hereditarily conduct the festival after paying a sum of Rs. 120
per year for the maintenance of the executant. Solaimalai entered into possession of the property sometime later and he was in such possession as
a trustee from the year 1926 till the time of his death in 1941. Thereafter his widow, who was also called Pechi Ammal, the first defendant to the
present suit, got into possession of the trust properties. She made an alienation of one of the properties. The appellants thereupon filed a suit to
recover possession of the properties from the first defendant and her alienee in O. S. No. 105 of 1944 on the file of the Sub Court, Madurai. The
litigation ultimately came up to this Court in S. A. No. 545 of 1947. Pending the second appeal the junior Pechi Ammal died. Viswanatha Sastri, J.
who disposed of the second appeal held that Periakaruppa lost his title to the trusteeship by the adverse possession of Solaimalai and that the
plaintiffs in that suit could not sustain that suit. The learned Judge, however, left open the question whether the first defendant, the widow of
Solaimalai, could ever be held to be a trustee and whether after her death the properties could be recovered. That lady, however, continued to
make further alienations of the properties during the pendency of the suit. After the death of the junior Pechi Ammal, which event happened during
the pendency of the second appeal, the appellants filed the suit out of which the present appeal arises for the relief''s aforesaid. The widow of
Solaimalai who was impleaded as the first defendant died soon after the institution of the suit. Her daughter was impleaded as the 8th defendant;
she claimed that she was entitled to the hereditary right of trusteeship. The alienees from widow of Solaimalai were defendants 2 to 5 and 9. They
pleaded title in themselves and also contended that the alienations were for consideration and necessity of the first defendant. The sixth defendant
was only a tenant. Sri Kallalagar Devastanam was impleaded as the seventh defendant to the suit. There was another defendant to the action,
namely, the tenth defendant who claimed to be the adopted son of Mooka Konar it being alleged that he was adopted just prior to the death of the
junior Pechi Ammal. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the appellants were the nearest heirs to Mooka Konar, that the properties were
validly endowed for the trust, that the tenth defendant was not duly adopted by Mooka Konar and that the alienations made by the first defendant
were neither supported by consideration nor binding on the trust. He however held that the plaintiffs had no title to maintain the suit as according to
him the heirs of Solaimalai should be deemed to have acquired title by adverse possession. The learned Judge also held that the trust was not
public but a private one. As a result of this finding the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit.
The appellants thereupon filed the present appeal. The substantial question in this appeal is whether the appellants are entitled to recover
possession of the properties, whether in their character as the heirs of Periakaruppa by virtue of Ex. A-1 or as the heirs of the founder on reverter
on the failure of the line of trustees prescribed therein. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the claim on the former basis was extinguished by
the adverse possession of Solaimalai and his heirs and that there was no scope for the application of the alternative basis as the right had been lost
by adverse possession and there was nothing to revert to the heirs of the founder.
Before considering that question it is necessary to refer to a contention raised on behalf of the appellants by Mr. T. R. Srinivasan. He contended
that the trust created by Ex. A-1 was a public trust. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the trust was only private in character. Under Ex. A-
1 provision is made for the construction of a mandapam on a property of the donor and a mandagappadi was directed to be performed to Sri
Soundararaja Perumal during the time of the festival of the temple. The mandagappadi is not an integral part of the Chitrapournami Festival of the
temple which is being conducted every year on the sands of the Vaigai. It is in no way connected with it. The occasion of that festival is taken
advantage of to perform the worship under the trust when the Deity would be on its way to or from the temple to Madurai for the festival. Such
worship which is familiarly known as Mandagappadi is common in our country. The Deity is invited to stop a while and worship is offered at places
where the devotees want to worship it. An endowment for the conduct of such worship cannot be a specific endowment as it is in no way
connected with the temple or any of its principal festivals. It is intended only for the benefit of the persons offering worship. Such an endowment
being neither for the public nor for the performance of any recognised puja or festival of the temple cannot be held to be a specific endowment
connected with the temple. In Deoki Nandan v. Muralidhar AIR 1957 S.C.R. 133, the Supreme Court held that in the case of a private trust the
beneficiaries would be specific individuals while in the case of a public endowment it would be the general public or a class thereof. In the present
case, there is no difficulty in finding that the intention of the donor was to secure spiritual benefit to Mooka Konar and his family. I am of opinion
that the conclusion of the lower Court that the trust is a private one is correct.
The question then arises as to whether the appellants are the trustees. They put their claim as I stated already on a two-fold basis : (1) By virtue
of devolution of the hereditary right created under Ex. A-1 (2) as the heirs of Mooka Konar in whom they contend the trusteeship had reverted by
reason of the failure of the line of the trustees provided for under the original foundation. In the judgment of this Court in S. A. No. 545 of 1947 it
was held that both Periakaruppa and the appellants lost their rights of trusteeship by reason of the adverse possession of Solaimalai. Under Ex. B-
1, the junior Pechi Ammal expressly stated that the trusteeship created by Ex. A-1 had failed. From this it would follow that there has been a
failure of the line of trustees prescribed out by the original foundation. I cannot really appreciate the conclusion arrived at by the learned
Subordinate Judge when he stated that the trusteeship had not failed for one purpose but it did for another. The learned Subordinate Judge held
that as the appellants were the heirs of Periakaruppa it could not be held that the trusteeship as prescribed in Ex. A-1 had failed. But he also held
that because Periakaruppa and his heirs had lost their right by adverse possession there could be no reverter to the founders heirs. That would be
so only if Solaimalai had acquired a hereditary right to trusteeship by adverse possession. If the acquisition of trusteeship was only of a limited
duration, the office would either revert to the trustees under Ex. A-1 or to the founders heirs. Neither Periakaruppa nor the appellants performed
the trust. Junior Pechi who was one of the founders thereupon took upon herself the right of management of the trust. That is what she has stated in
Ex. B-1. Under these circumstances, it must be held that the devolution of trustees as prescribed by the founder had failed. In the present case the
trustees under Ex. A-1 are the same as those who would get the office by virtue of the office reverting to the heirs of the founder.
The question whether the heirs of the founder would be entitled to get the trusteeship will depend upon the fact whether Solaimalai and his heirs
acquired title to the trusteeship by adverse possession. It must be stated, at this stage, that it is not the case of the respondent, namely, the daughter
of Solaimalai, that she claimed title to the trusteeship by virtue of the provisions of Ex. B-1. Mr. K.S. Champakesa Iyengar made it clear in the
course of his submissions that she was not putting her claim on that basis. He conceded that after the founders had prescribed the line of trustees at
the time of the endowment they had no power to add to the terms of the trust by prescribing another line of trustees. The decision in Gauranga
Sahu v. Sudevi Mata 40 Mad. 612, was not relied on either before Viswanatha Sastri, J., in S. A. No. 545 of 1947 or before me in support of the
case of the respondent, as authorising junior Pechi Ammal to provide afresh for the devolution of the office of the trustees under Ex. B-1.
The only question then is whether Solaimalai and his heirs had acquired title to the trusteeship by adverse possession. On the finding that the
trust was intended for the benefit of the donor and his heirs and not a public trust, it is clear that they had a beneficial interest in the property. It may
be that such interests may not entitle them to enjoy the income from the property. The spiritual benefit accruing to them under the family trust would
certainly create sufficient interest in them. I cannot agree with Mr. K.S. Champakesa Aiyangar, the learned Advocate for the respondent, that the
trusteeship in the present case is merely a bare right of management without any kind of benefit whatsoever. In my opinion, there is a benefit,
namely, the spiritual benefit in the person who performs the mandagappadi prescribed under the document. If that were so, the trusteeship would
be analogous to the shebait office in Northern India. When therefore the junior Pechi Ammal took possession of the property as a trustee on the
failure of Periakaruppa, she took it back as one of the founders and she purported to act as a trustee, such trusteeship combining in itself the right
of management as well as the right to the beneficial enjoyment, e.g. the spiritual benefit conferred on her by virtue of the performance of the
mandagappadi. This would entitle her to act as if the trusteeship belonged to the family of Mooka Konar and that she was only having an interest of
a Hindu window. In Kalipada Chakraborti and Another Vs. Palani Bala Devi and Others, a Hindu window who was in possession of Shebaiti
office (a share of it) alienated that right in favour of strangers who were in possession for more than the statutory period. The next heirs of the
widow''s husband filed a suit to recover possession of the office on the death of the widow. The Supreme Court held that whatever may be said
about the office of a trustee which carried with it no beneficial interest a shebaitship carried with it both the idea of trust and property and that if the
next heir happened to be a female she must be deemed to have only a Hindu woman''s estate, and that under the substantive principles of Hindu
Law adverse possession against her could not amount to adverse possession against the reversion. I am of opinion that the principles enunciated by
their Lordships of the Supreme Court is that case would apply to the present case in which there is the interest coupled with the right of
management of the trust properties. The position of junior Pechi Ammal when she took over the properties from Periakaruppan would be that of a
trustee but in regard to the nature of her right it would be analogous to that of a Hindu woman''s estate. The only right which a person like
Solaimalai could prescribe against her was her right, i.e., a limited right as a Hindu widow and the adverse titles acquired by Solaimalai would not
subsist beyond her lifetime. The appellants as the next heirs of Mooka Konar would be entitled to maintain the suit. The suit is within time. The
result is that the plaintiffs will be entitled to recover possession of the properties as the trustees of the trust created under Ex. A. 1.
The appeal is allowed with costs here and in the Court below. The contesting respondents will pay the Court fee due to this Government in both
the Courts. Future mesne profits will be ascertained and a decree passed by the lower Court.