Trust Substitution Granted in Legal Dispute

The Tribunal allowed the substitution of Dr. MAM Ramaswamy Chettiar of Chettinad Charitable Trust in place of the deceased petitioner and dismissed the case filed by the adopted son. The Trust, established through a Trust Deed and Will, was deemed entitled to the properties based on the clear terms of the documents, despite pending probate and legal heirship challenges. The Trust was directed to file an amended petition, and the case was scheduled for further hearing.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Substitution of legal representative in place of the deceased petitioner.
2. Validity and recognition of trust deeds and will.
3. Entitlement to the deposit and movable properties.
4. Pending probate and legal heirship certificate challenges.

Issue 1: Substitution of Legal Representative
The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether Dr. MAM Ramaswamy Chettiar of Chettinad Charitable Trust or Mr. MAMR Muthiah, the adopted son, should be impleaded in place of the deceased Dr. MAM Ramaswamy in TCP/1/2016. The Tribunal noted that Dr. MAM Ramaswamy had executed a Deed of Declaration of Trust on 09.02.2015, creating the Dr. MAM Ramaswamy Chettiar of Chettinad Charitable Trust. The Trust Deed explicitly stated that all movable and immovable properties would vest in the Trust upon his death. Furthermore, the Will dated 18.02.2015 reiterated that no properties would be left to MAMR Muthiah, and all would go to the Trust. Given the strained relationship between Dr. MAM Ramaswamy and MAMR Muthiah, and the clear terms of the Will and Trust Deed, the Tribunal concluded that the Charitable Trust was entitled to step into the shoes of Dr. MAM Ramaswamy for the adjudication of TCP/1/2016. Consequently, TCA/1/2016 was allowed, and CA/69/2016 was dismissed.

Issue 2: Validity and Recognition of Trust Deeds and Will
The Tribunal examined the Deed of Declaration of Trust dated 09.02.2015 and the Will dated 18.02.2015. The Trust Deed constituted the Dr. MAM Ramaswamy Chettiar of Chettinad Charitable Trust, and the Will bequeathed all properties to this Trust. Despite the pending probate of the Will in the High Court of Madras, the Tribunal held that the Trust was not claiming rights as an executor or legatee but was relying on the Will for collateral purposes. The Tribunal found the recitals in the Will clear and explicit, supporting the Trust's claim.

Issue 3: Entitlement to the Deposit and Movable Properties
The Tribunal noted that Dr. MAM Ramaswamy had made an oral gift of all his movable assets to the Trust on 30.09.2015, which was accepted by the Trust. This included the fixed deposits and loans and advances listed in the Will. The Respondent Company argued that the amount was a long-term interest-free loan due in March 2023. However, the Tribunal concluded that the properties gifted by Dr. MAM Ramaswamy to the Trust became the properties of the Charitable Trust upon his death, as per the Trust Deed and Will.

Issue 4: Pending Probate and Legal Heirship Certificate Challenges
The Tribunal acknowledged the pending probate of the Will in OP No. 894/2016 and the challenge to the legal heirship certificate obtained by MAMR Muthiah. However, it found that these issues did not preclude the substitution of the Charitable Trust in place of Dr. MAM Ramaswamy for the current proceedings. The Tribunal emphasized the clear terms of the Will and Trust Deed, which excluded MAMR Muthiah from inheriting any properties.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed TCA/1/2016, substituting Dr. MAM Ramaswamy Chettiar of Chettinad Charitable Trust in place of the deceased petitioner, and dismissed CA/69/2016 filed by MAMR Muthiah. The Charitable Trust was directed to file an amended copy of the petition within two weeks. The case was posted for hearing on 06.07.2022.

---