V ALAGIRI Vs. K THILLAI VINAYAGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr.Srinath Sridevan, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and Mr.P.K.Sivasubramanian, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and considered their respective submissions.

(2.) THIS revision has been directed against the Judgment in RCA.No.8 of 2003 on the file of Rent Control Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge) Thiruvarur which had arisen out of an order in R.C.O.P.No.8 of 2001 on the file of Rent Controller (District Munsif) Thiruvarur.

(3.) NOW we have to consider whether the intention of the settlor under Ex A1 was to create a trust of public in nature or it is only a private trust. Relevant recitals in Ex A1 reads as follows: From the reading of the above said recitals in Ex A1 will clearly go to show that the purpose of dedication was made only for three months in a year ie., Pankuni, Chitrai and Vaikasi ie., to be provided drinking water to the public. It has been further clearly stated that the expenses shall not exceed above Rs.40/-. The very important recital in Ex A1 is that the surplus income derived from the property has to be taken by his son Karthikeyan and after him, his son Thillai Naicker has to succeed income derived from the property. So only for the limited purpose for conducting "Thaneer Panthal" only for the limited period of Tamil Month of Pankuni, Chitrai and Vaikasi, the dedication has been made. If the intention of the creator of the Trust would be in public in nature than he would have dedicated the entire income derived from the property only for the purpose of conducting Thaneer Panthal but the recital would read that only for a limited period of three months in a year from out of the income derived from the property schedule to Ex A1 deed which is to be utilized for the purpose of conducting Thaneer Panthal that too without exceeding Rs.40/-. Under such circumstances, as rightly held by the Courts below Ex A1 is to be considered only as a Trust of Private in nature and not a public one.