GURUVAMMAL Vs. ARUMUGA PADAYACHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following table shows how the parties whose names occur in these proceedings are connected: | | _________________________ ____________________ | | | | Krishnaswami Aiyar Subramania Aiyar=Sivakami. Seshagiri=Lakshmi Aiyar | Ammal. | | | | ____________________ | | Guruvammal. Venkataramana Aiyar=Venkammal. | | | Sons. | Ramachandra Aiyar.

(2.) Subramania Aiyar died in 1899 leaving a will bequeathing the land now in dispute to his nephew Venkataramana Aiyar. By a codicil he gave his widow Sivakami Ammal a life-interest in it. Another bequest was of a sum of money to form a trust fund, of which Sivakami was during her life-time the self-constituted trustee. The widow survived Venkataramana Aiyar, and she too made a will, and in it she declared that Venkataramana Aiyar had told her, before his death, that she might include the land in the trust already created. After her death in 1924, on the strength of the allegation in this will that the property was trust property, Venkataramana Aiyar's sister Guruvammal applied to Religious Endowments Board for an order under Section 42 of the Act (II of 1927) appointing her to discharge the duties of the trustee, and, under Section 77, for an order allocating the income of the Endowment between religious and charitable purposes. The Board passed orders accordingly. The order appointing Guruvammal was challenged a little later by Sivakami's brother's widow and her sons, on the ground that Sivakami had nominated them as trustees in her will but the order already passed in Guruvammal's favour was substantially confirmed. This lady then proceeded to apply to the District Court, under Section 78 of the Act, to be put in possession of the trust property. In her application she named a number of respondents, among them being Sivakami's brother's widow and her sons, who had contested her appointment before the Board, and one Arumugam Padayachi, said to be the lessee of the property now in dispute. The learned District Judge ordered notice to the respondents, but no notice was issued, because he subsequently acceded to a representation of the petitioner's vakil that no notice was necessary. Ex parte orders were accordingly passed directing delivery, symbolical in the case of the property now in question, which was in the occupation of a tenant.

(3.) Then arose opposition from another quarter. Matters had proceeded so far on the footing that the property was trust property. Venkataramana Aiyar's widow and her alleged adopted son disputed this, denying that Sivakami had received from Venkataramana Aiyar any such permission as her will alleged to treat the property as trust property. These persons claimed the land as their own, and not unnaturally complained that the proceedings before the Board and the District Court had taken place behind their backs. They accordingly asked the District Judge to set his previous order aside and dismiss Guruvammal's application. The matter came before the successor to the learned District Judge who had passed the previous order. He has treated the application as sustainable upon the analogy of Order 21, Rule 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, and has posted the case for evidence. Against this order Guruvammal has preferred this Civil Revision Petition, and the point for decision is whether the District Judge was right in re-opening the matter.