INNASIMUTHU PILLAI Vs. REVAJLUTZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a representative suit under Order 1, Rule 8, of the Civil P. C.. The plaintiffs claim to represent the Roman Catholic Vellalas and Mudaliars of Vedakkankulam, They sued for possession of a School building and site which hard been sold by Defendants 2 to 6 to the 1 defendant who is an American Lutheran Missionary of Nagercoil. The 6th defendant halving died during the suit, the 7 defendant was brought on record as his legal representative. Further reliefs were also claimed in the shape of declarations and injunctions. The suit failed in the first Court on the District Munsif's findings : (1) that the suit property was not trust property ,(2) that the sale to 1 defendant was valid and binding on the plaintiffs; and (3) that a body of Roman Catholics distinguishable as belonging to the Vellala and Mudaliar castes cannot be legally recognized as there are no caste distinctions among Christians, The appeal to the Sub-Court failed for the same reason.

(2.) It is conceded now that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the 1 relief--that of possession of the suit property in the present suit. Mr. Vaz argues for the appellants that it should have been found that there was a public trust created and that his clients should have been given a bare declaration that the suit property belongs to the entire body of Roman Catholic Christian Vellalas and Mudaliari of Vedakkankulam and that the sale for the purpose of its being used for teaching by a person like the 1 defendant antagonistic to the Roman Catholic religion, was invalid.

(3.) There is no deed of trust in the present case. Counsel relied on user as evidenced by Exs. E and C and he quoted the case of Clifford's Inn in Smith V/s. Ken [1900] 2. Ch. 511 and the same case in appeal in Smith V/s. Kerr [1902] 1 Ch. 774 and the Attorney General V/s. Webster [1875] 20 Eq. 483 as instances where there was no trust expressed but on long user for charitable purposes a trust was held to have been established. In the former case there was clear divestant of the title under the Indenture of 1618 by the original owners, the Earl of Cumberland and Lord Clifford, the purpose being the maintenance of a school of learning. The carrying out of that purpose for three centuries stamped the institution with the character of a trust. In the latter case, the property originally given for superstitious uses became vested in the Grown by statute. The Grown in turn granted the property to Lord Went-worth, who conveyed it to two individuals for the use of the parish at St. Stephen in the City of London. There was evidence that the lands were applied for charitable purposes. In the end it was held that the property was not a private property of the parish but was subject to the powers of the Charity Commissioners