MUNIPALLI VENKATACHALAPATHI RAO Vs. VULIGUNDAM BHIMA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two plaintiffs, viz., Munipalli Venkatachalapathi Rao and Thota Ellamanda, filed O.S. No. 36 of 1956 against 14 defendants in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bapatla, praying for declaring the plaint schedule property as constituting a charitable trust, for removing the defendants from the trusteeship and management of the property and for settling a scheme for the proper administration of the trust relating to that property and for other allied reliefs. The first defendant filed a written statement contesting the suit. Defendants 8, 12, 13 and 14 adopted the written statement of the first defendant. The other defendants remained ex parte. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit with costs of the contesting defendants. Thereupon, the first plaintiff filed this appeal. He impleaded the second plaintiff as the 15th respondent. Respondents 1 to 14 were defendants 1 to 14. Respondents 16 to 18 were brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased 12th respondent. After the first plaintiff filed this appeal, he died and his legal representatives were added as the second and third appellants, as per the order of this Court dated 11th October, 1962 in C.M.P. No. 7609 of 1962.

(2.) The contentions in the plaint are as follows :- The suit land consists of Acs. 5'53 cents of dry land. In about 1802, the owner, Vuligundam Agastya Rao dedicated that land as Dharmadayam for the public benefit. In consideration thereof subsequently the Government gave up the right to collect land revenue on the said land. The suit land was developed into a tope containing tamarind and mango trees, which were of immense use to the villagers.

(3.) The plaintiffs are permanent residents of the same village, viz., Mamillapalli and are interested in the proper management of the charity. The trusteeship of the charity has been in the family of the founder. The Hindu villagers have always been making use of the trees in the tope on festive occasions. The first defendant, who is grandson of the founder, came into management of the tope about 25 years ago and has been acting as trustee from then. He conceived the idea of converting the trust property into his personal property for his own selfish ends. To achieve his object, he neglected the trees and allowed them to be destroyed by selling and gifting the right to cut the trees to whomsoever he liked. Defendants 1, 2 and 7 hopelessly mismanaged the trust and committed several acts which amounted to breach of trust. Defendants 1 and 2 alienated Acs. 231/4 cents of the tope and the 7th defendant alienated Acs. 0.311/4 cents of the tope to defendants 12 to 14 under sale deeds of 1953 and 1954. Those alienees, namely, defendants 12, 13 and 14 have not yet taken possession of the land. They are not bona fide purchasers without notice and the sales are collusive transactions. The usufruct of the trees exising on the lands is being exclusively used for the personal benefit of the first defendant. Defendants 2 to 11 are co-trustees (of first defendant), but have not been evincing any interest in the affairs of the trust. The first defendant, with fraudulent motive and by misrepresentations, moved the revenue authorities for resumption of the grant on the ground that the tope had ceased to exist. In fact, the tope never ceased to exist, but the first defendant managed to see that the trees were removed with a view to urge his contention before the revenue authorities. Even now 130 trees exist on the land. By fraudulent representations and with the active connivance, co-operation and assistance of the Village Karnam, the first defendant got the inam of the land revenue resumed. The defendants or any other members of the founder cannot repudiate the trust and claim the property as their own under any circumstances. The grant of the land for charity is irrevocable. Assuming, without admitting, that the object of the trust has failed, the suit land being trust property, should be utilised for some other charitable purpose under the doctrine of cypres.