M G NARAYANASWAMI NAIDU Vs. M BALASUNDARAM NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals arise out of the decrees of the Sub-Court, Madura in O. S. No. 1 of 1946, wherein a preliminary decree for the framing of a scheme, after removing the appellant from ithe office of trustee was passed on 22-21847 and A. S. No. 319 of 1947 is preferred against that decree. Against the scheme actually framed, A. S. No. 799 of 1948 has been filed and the two appeals were heard together.

(2.) One Narayanaswami Naidu who died long ago created a disposition of property for the object of conducting a mandagapadi in the town of Madurai and the person who conducts it now is the first defendant, who is Narayanaswami Naidu's grandson, i.e. the son of Govindaswami Naidu, one of the sons of Narayanaswami Naidu by his second wife. The plaintiff in the lower Court is another grandson of Narayanaswami Naidu being the son of Venkatasami Naidu, the uncle of the first defendant. The other defendants are the descendants of Venkataswami Naidu. It is not necessary to set out in detail the relationship between the parties as the same is admitted and is found in the genealogical tree appended as schedule B to the scheme. The history of this trust is set out in the judgment of this Court in -- 'A. S. No. 406 of 1943 (A)'.

(3.) During the procession in the month of Chitrai of the Kalla Alagar Deity from the Alagar hills to the Vaigai river, there are mandagapadis conducted by various pious citizens on the route. Similarly, during the month of Vaikasi the Koodal Alagar deity is also taken in procession, and that procession also stops at various mandapams on the route where poojas are offered. These are generally known as mandagapadis. The Plaintiff''s case is that Narayanaswami Naidu created a trust of certain properties for the purpose of offering pooja when the aforesaid processions take place and the first defendant, as the present trustee of those properties, is guilty of various acts of misappropriation, malfeasance and breach of trust. It was on that footing that the suit was filed with the object of removing the first defendant from the trusteeship and for the framing of a scheme. The recitals in the plaint as to how the trust came into existence are as follows.