Skip to content


Suppiah thevan Vs. M. Krishna Row and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in3Ind.Cas.435
AppellantSuppiah thevan
RespondentM. Krishna Row and ors.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act xiv of 1882), section 437 - trusts act (ii of 1882), sections 73, 75--registration act (iii of 1877), section 17(b)--appointment of new trustee, whether should be by registered document--application by new trustee to be placed on record--appeal against order granting application, whether lies. - .....of the suit by a new trustee, and so is appealable.2. on the merits, we are of opinion that the subordinate judge is right and that the instrument does not require registration.3. it is contended that it operates to create rights over immovable property in the trustee appointed by it, but it is not by its operation, that the rights of the trustee are created.4. there is nothing in the instrument which, expressly or by implication, creates any rights in the person appointed by it. the rights are, as the subordinate judge points out, created by the operation of section 75 of the trusts act and not by the instrument of appointment.5. we have no doubt that the office of trustee in this case is not immovable property within the meaning of the registration act.6. we dismiss the appeal with.....
Judgment:

1. The order of the Subordinate Judge, though purporting to be made on a petition presented under Section 437 of the Code of 1882, is in fact an order disallowing objections to the continuance of the suit by a new Trustee, and so is appealable.

2. On the merits, we are of opinion that the Subordinate Judge is right and that the instrument does not require registration.

3. It is contended that it operates to create rights over immovable property in the Trustee appointed by it, but it is not by its operation, that the rights of the Trustee are created.

4. There is nothing in the instrument which, expressly or by implication, creates any rights in the person appointed by it. The rights are, as the Subordinate Judge points out, created by the operation of Section 75 of the Trusts Act and not by the instrument of appointment.

5. We have no doubt that the office of Trustee in this case is not immovable property within the meaning of the Registration Act.

6. We dismiss the appeal with costs, and dismiss the revision petition.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //