1927 (5) TMI 4 - HC - Indian Laws

Court grants appeal to Chidambaram charity, appoints plaintiff as trustee. Plaintiff gains property control. Alapakkam, Mailam suits dismissed.

Chockalingam Versus Duraiswami and Ors.

Chockalingam Versus Duraiswami and Ors. - AIR 1928 Mad 327 Issues Involved:1. Validity of the appointment of trusteeship by Murugayya Mudaliar.2. The effect of the Pondicherry Court's judgment on the trusteeship.3. Rights of the plaintiff and the first defendant concerning the Chidambaram, Mailam, and Alapakkam charities.4. The applicability of the principle of res judicata.5. The power of appointment and revocation of trusteeship.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the appointment of trusteeship by Murugayya Mudaliar:The plaintiff claimed to be the legally appointed trustee by Murugayya Mudaliar, the previous trustee, for three endowments: Chidambaram, Mailam, and Alapakkam charities. The first defendant, Murugayya Mudaliar's nephew, contested this, claiming he was the properly constituted trustee based on Exhibits I and II. The Subordinate Judge found Exhibit I invalid due to coercion and undue influence but upheld Exhibit II as valid and binding. The judgment emphasized that Exhibit I was executed under pressure and thus invalid, while Exhibit II, despite being contested as a forgery, was found genuine by both the Subordinate Judge and the Pondicherry Court.2. The effect of the Pondicherry Court's judgment on the trusteeship:The Pondicherry Court had previously adjudicated on the validity of Exhibit II, finding it genuine and upholding the first defendant's appointment as trustee. The High Court of Madras considered whether this judgment was binding and whether it rendered the matter res judicata. The judgment concluded that the Pondicherry Court's decision was not binding concerning the Chidambaram charity, as the properties and trusts were situated and to be performed in British India. However, for the Mailam charity, the Pondicherry Court's decision was upheld due to the significant portion of the properties and trusts being within its jurisdiction.3. Rights of the plaintiff and the first defendant concerning the Chidambaram, Mailam, and Alapakkam charities:For the Alapakkam charity, the court found that neither the plaintiff nor the first defendant had any right, as the deed did not grant Murugayya Mudaliar the power to appoint a trustee. The Alapakkam charity's trusteeship was to descend to the male heirs of Ayyasami Mudaliar, Murugayya Mudaliar's predecessor. Concerning the Chidambaram charity, the court declared the plaintiff as the rightful trustee, invalidating the first defendant's claim based on Exhibit II. For the Mailam charity, the court upheld the first defendant's trusteeship due to the binding nature of the Pondicherry Court's judgment.4. The applicability of the principle of res judicata:The court analyzed whether the Pondicherry Court's judgment constituted res judicata. It concluded that for the Chidambaram charity, the Pondicherry Court lacked jurisdiction, and thus its judgment did not render the matter res judicata. However, for the Mailam charity, the Pondicherry Court's jurisdiction was valid, and its judgment was binding, rendering the matter res judicata.5. The power of appointment and revocation of trusteeship:The court discussed the power of appointment and revocation of trusteeship, emphasizing that such powers must be executed bona fide in the interest of the trust. Exhibit I was invalidated due to undue influence, while Exhibit II, despite being contested, was upheld as a valid appointment. The court also highlighted that a trustee's power to appoint a successor must align with the trust deed's terms and should not involve personal gain or advantage. The court found that Murugayya Mudaliar's subsequent revocation of the first defendant's appointment and the appointment of the plaintiff were valid for the Chidambaram charity.Judgment:The court allowed the appeal concerning the Chidambaram charity, declaring the plaintiff as the rightful trustee and entitled to possession and management of the properties. The plaintiff's suit was dismissed for the Alapakkam and Mailam charities. Each party was directed to bear their costs throughout the proceedings.