TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Rules on Inheritance & Trust Management in Hindu Law Case</h1> <h3>Veluswami Goundan Versus Dandapani and Ors.</h3> Veluswami Goundan Versus Dandapani and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Legitimacy of the second plaintiff as the lawfully wedded wife and the first plaintiff as the legitimate son of Ramaswami Goundan.2. Validity and nature of the dharmasasanam (Ex. P-3) executed by Ramaswami Goundan.3. Entitlement to manage the properties and perform the services specified in the deed.4. Validity of the charitable endowment under Hindu Law.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legitimacy of the Second Plaintiff and the First Plaintiff:The learned Subordinate Judge found that the second plaintiff was lawfully wedded to Ramaswami Goundan and that the first plaintiff was born to him. This finding was not contested by the appellant's counsel, Mr. Viswanatha Sastri, during the appeal.2. Validity and Nature of the Dharmasasanam (Ex. P-3):The learned Subordinate Judge concluded that the dharmasasanam (Ex. P-3) was executed by Ramaswami as a nominal transaction to screen the properties against the claims of his illegitimate son by his concubine, Kannammal. However, it was intended to be operative to the extent of charging the properties with an annual expenditure of Rs. 150 for the performance of the services specified therein. The properties devolved on the first plaintiff as the undivided son of Ramaswami, subject to the trust, and the second plaintiff was entitled to manage the properties on his behalf.Mr. Viswanatha Sastri argued that the finding of the learned Judge that the transaction evidenced by Ex. P-3 was partly nominal and partly operative was opposed to the evidence and self-contradictory. He contended that the deed operated and was intended to operate as a genuine dedication of the entire properties to the trust specified therein and that the deed was acted upon by Ramaswami himself, who performed the services applying the income of the properties thereto.3. Entitlement to Manage the Properties and Perform the Services:The first defendant, son of Ramaswami by his first wife, claimed that he, though divided from his father, was entitled as the only legitimate son of Ramaswami to manage the trust properties on behalf of the trust and perform the services specified in the deed. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed this claim, finding instead that the second plaintiff was entitled to manage the properties on behalf of the first plaintiff.4. Validity of the Charitable Endowment under Hindu Law:The deed of charity provided for the performance of gurupooja at the samadhi or tomb of Ramaswami's father, which was not recognized as a charitable object under Hindu Law. The Court referred to the decision in Draviasundaram v. Subramania AIR1945Mad217, which held that the building of a tomb and its maintenance was not a charitable object, and the whole provision was unlawful and the gift invalid. The provisions of Ex. P-3 were closely similar, and the principle of the decision applied.Mr. Viswanatha Sastri argued that the worship in the 'temple' mentioned in the deed was a distinct charitable object. However, the Court found no reference to any Sivalingam installed in the so-called temple in the deed, and the evidence indicated that the worship related only to the samadhi. The Court concluded that the 'temple' was not an independent object of bounty but an adjunct of the samadhi, and thus the whole dedication failed.Mr. Muthukrishna Aiyar contended that even if the 'temple' were a distinct and severable object of the dedication, it would be void for uncertainty under Hindu Law as no particular deity was mentioned in the deed. The Court rejected this contention, stating that a gift for 'the worship of God' is valid under Hindu Law, and the Court can apply the doctrine of cy-pres to uphold the gift as a public trust.Conclusion:The appeals were dismissed with costs, and the memorandum of objections directed against the declaration of a charge on the properties was allowed. The Court held that the 'temple' was not intended to be an independent object of bounty but an adjunct of the samadhi, and therefore, the whole dedication failed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
