JAINAMBUKANNI AMMAL Vs. RUTHRAPATHY PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit filed by two persons interested in a certain charity to be conducted on the occasion of the Masi Makham festival of Sri Souriraja Perumal at Tirukannapuram as provided in a deed of settlement executed by one Marimuthu Pillai on 4th February, 1911, for the removal of the lirst defendant who purported to be the trustee at the time of the institution of the suit, for the framing of a scheme in respect of the charity and to declare certain alienations made by the first defendant in favour of the. fourth and the seventh defendants invalid and not binding on the trust and to appoint a fit and proper person as trustee in place of the first defendant. The suit was filed after obtaining the sanction of the Advocate-General under Section 92 of the Civil P. C.. The learned District Judge of East Tanjore has substantially decreed the suit as prayed for and the sixth and seventh defendants appeal, the sixth defendant: being a purchaser from the fourth defendant of the property alienated to him.

(2.) Marimuthu Pillai executed on the 4 February, 1911, a settlement deed on the construction of which depends the determination of the main question arising in this appeal. The document runs as follows: I have made the following arrangement, in respect of the property specified hereunder which was acquired by me out of my own earnings and which has been in my enjoyment with miras for the salvation of my soul. Out of the funds of the aforesaid property, thannir pandal dhwmam, i.e., water-shed charity shall be conducted for seven days on the occasion of the Masi Makham festival of Sri Souriraja Perumal at Thirukannapuram. During that Makham festival day, 100 persons shall be fed and the charity conducted. Out of the income derived from the aforesaid land, excluding the Government kist, etc., expenses in connection with the charity the remaining income shall be utilised for the maintenance of my sons who have come from the east, viz., (1) Subramaniam, (2) Natesan and (3) my wife, Thillai Ammal. The aforesaid charity and the aforesaid property shall be managed by my eldest son-in-law, N. Govindaswami Pillai. After the said Govindaswami Pillai the aforesaid charity and the said family shall be managed by his nominee. The aforesaid Govindaswami Pillai shall perform obsequies, etc., to me, as well as to my wife.

(3.) The contention of the appellants is that under this document the charity is only entitled to a charge for an amount necessary to carry out the objects mentioned in the deed and that the property itself was not dedicated for the benefit of the charity. The appellants also contend that in any event the legal heirs of the settlor are entitled to the property under the document subject no doubt to an obligation to have the charity conducted as provided therein. The status of Govindaswami Pillai was not made clear by the learned advocate for the appellants, but as we understand him, Govindaswami Pillai was only a manager with no legal title to the property and he did not occupy even the position of a trustee. The contention of the contesting respondents (plaintiffs) is that taking all the terms of the deed into consideration together with the surrounding circumstances, the entire property was dedicated to the charity subject only to an obligation on the part of the manager to utilise the surplus income, if any, for the maintenance of three named individuals who were also related to the settlor.