SOMASUNDARAM PILLAI Vs. KANAKASABAI PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I think the lower Court's order strictly speaking, so far as its wording goes, is wrong. But I am concerned with the question whether it is substantially correct; in the event of its being right in substance, I shall not be justified in the exercise of my revisional powers, in interfering with the order. The lower court's view seems to be that there is no need to appoint Kanakasabhai as a trustee, as he, being a "Vamsastha" of Chidambara, becomes a trustee without appointment and all that has to be done by the Court is merely to recognise him as trustee. I do not think this is right; but I am prepared to construe the order as amounting to an appointment of Kanakasabai.

(2.) The following genealogical table shows that Kanakasabai. is the daughter's son of Parameswara and it must be noted that no personal disqualification is alleged against him.

(3.) The question is, on the death of Meenakshi on whom does the trusteeship devolve? The relevant portion in the scheme of management reads thus: The administration of the Pichakkatlalai shall vest jointly in the Vamsasthas of the founder. Chindambaram Pillai, vis., the first plaintiff (Meenakshi Achi) and defendants 1 and 2 (Somasundaratn Pillai and Sugantha Achi).