KANYAKA PARAMESWARI DEVASTHANAM AND CHARITIES Vs. MEHTA ELECTRICALS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A.S. Nos.976 and 1011 of 1994 have been filed by two sets of defendants in O.S. No.10358 of 1989, on the file of City Civil Court, Madras. Tr.Appeal No.10 of 1997 has been filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 10256 of 1989, on the file of the same court.

(2.) THE first suit was filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 10256 of 1989 for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendant, his men and agents from in any way committing trespass or interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property bearing Door No.139, Govindappa Naicken, Street, Madras-1 and also for other consequential reliefs. Defendant is the plaintiff in the connected suit.

(3.) IN the written statement filed by the defendant, he contended that the suit as framed is not maintainable. It is further said that the plaint property has not vested with the plaintiff, but it is vested in the Dharmakarta, who is the sole Kattalai Trustee. According to him, the suit property is not part of the estate of plaintiff, and, by virtue of settlement deed dated 23.10.1930 executed by N.T. Ramanujam Chetty, the Hereditary Trustee of the plaintiff in his capacity as sole trustee, should perform the charity as set out therein, it is further alleged that there is only a partial dedication for charity, and the dedication is not absolute. Only a charge on the income of the property for performance ofthe charity is created. It is further said that the present Dharmakarta of the plaintiff- INstitution, on 26.10.1989, executed a registered lease in favour of the defendant for a period of 10 years at a rate of rent of Rs.3,000 per month with a deposit of Rs.30,000. He has further contended that he filed O.S. No. 10358 of 1989, for getting possession of the property. He, therefore, said that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief, and the suit for injunction cannot be sustained.