AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shanmukham, J.—At the time when these two ejectment Suits were filed (Ejectment Suit Nos. 76 and 78 of 1976), even private trusts wore
exempted from the preview of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. But, pending the suits, the particular G.O. was amended
extending the privilege only to the public trusts.
The short question that arises for consideration in these two revision petitions is:
Whether the Plaintiff is a public trust entitled to claim the benefits of the above exemption?
The learned IV Judge, Court of Small Causes held:
Therefore, there can be no doubt that the Plaintiff trust is both a private as well as a public trust.
and
A careful perusal of Exhibit P-10 shows that the trust is a predominantly private trust.
In the above view, the learned Judge dismissed both the suits.
As against the said dismissal of the suits, the Plaintiff has come forward with the above revision petitions. The contention of the learned Counsel
for the Petitioner is, that, in view of the testator''s definite indication that his chief object was that the good services of gifts and charities should be
conducted permanently and properly, that as per the statement of accounts marked as exhibit P-14 for the years 1976 to 1978, not a single
payment was made to any relation mentioned in exhibit P-10, that all the funds of the trust were utilized for public charities as indicated in exhibit P-
10, numbering as items 70 to 88, and, in view of the further fact, that the payments directed to be made in exhibit P-10 under clauses 11 to 69 are
all donations directed to be made by the testator to his relatives, and that, as the donees have passed away, there is no need to make any payment
as directed by the testator, the trust should be deemed to be the public trust. I find there is every force in every one of the points urged by learned
Counsel for the Petitioner. A reference to Items 11 to 69 in exhibit P-10 would show that they are personal gifts to the persons indicated therein
and that with the passing away of every one of the donees, the purpose got terminated. Per contra, the directions as regards carrying out the trust
subsists forever. Then it is beyond doubt that the predominant purpose is to carry out the charities as indicated by the testator in exhibit P-l0 and
such charities include establishment of Ramanujakootams at (1) Madras, (2) Srivilliputtur (3) Mannargudi and (4) Tiruppakuli; establishment of
one, Elementary school in Madras and two other schools in the mofussil3; affording help to poor Vysyas and Brahmins for Upanayanams and
marriages; affording financial help by way of small monthly payments to poor and infirm vysyas; and other charities such as feeding of eight Swamis
daily in Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple in the Mulla Sahib Street, Madras-1, performances of Sundal and Dadyodanam, etc., Kainkaryams in
selected temple, sinking or renovating drinking water wells, for the use of the public, etc., Further, even according to the testator, this is the chief
object with which he has created the trust. If these aspects are taken into consideration, there can be no doubt that what was endowed under
exhibit P-10 is to carry out public charities in which event the trust will be a public trust.
It is useful to refer to the decision reported in M. Kesava Goundar v. D.C. Rajan1 in which a Division Bench of this Court had ruled that if the
purpose of the trust were to before the advancement of the religion, knowledge, commerce health, safety and other objects beneficial to the
mankind, certainly it will be a public trust. The beneficiary may be limited to a particular section of a community and need not necessarily be the
community at large. This above principle is reiterated in the same decision, referred to above.
In view of the foregoing, J have no hesitation to hold. that the Plaintiff-trust is a public trust, end, therefore, it is entitled to claim exemption of the
Government Orders(Government Order No. 2000, dated 16th August 1976). In that event, they are entitled to maintain the suits and claim
ejectment of the Defendant in both the suits as prayed for.
The result is, the civil revision petition is allowed, the judgment and decrees of the Court below in Ejectment Suits Original Suit Nos. 76 and 78
of 1976 are set aside and the suits are decreed. So far as. the costs are concerned, I direct both, the parties to bear their respective costs
throughout. In the circumstances, the Defendant in both the suits is given month''s time to vacate.