Skip to content


M. Krishnaswamy Mudaliar and anr. Vs. Nataraja Thambiran - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTrusts and Societies
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in7Ind.Cas.751
AppellantM. Krishnaswamy Mudaliar and anr.
RespondentNataraja Thambiran
Cases ReferredSee Ramasawmi Naick v. Ramasami Chetti
Excerpt:
trust, administration of - trust created in 1787--compromise decree settling the management of the trust--plaintiff a descendant of the family to he appointed deputy--right to succeed as deputy. - - 201. as regards any scheme which the learned judge may think fit to settle, it seems to us that although the consent decree in the suit of 1869 gives the present plaintiff no right in law to be appointed a deputy, the arrangement come to in 1869 might well be taken into consideration in settling the terms of the scheme......we think that the plaintiff's evidence establishes a prima facie case for relief and that the learned judge ought to have heard any evidence which the defendant was in a position to adduce and to have dealt with the case after hearing that evidence. we must, accordingly, set aside the decree of the learned judge and send back the case for trial. in our opinion, the portion of the decree in the suit of 1869 which orders that the plaintiff (in that suit) and his successors should appoint any future deputy from the male descendants of the defendant (in that suit), as we read the decree, was an order by consent. this being so, it does not have the effect of altering the terms of trust as created in 1787. see ramasawmi naick v. ramasami chetti 30 m. 255 : 2 m.l.t. 167 : 17 m.l.j. 201. as.....
Judgment:

1. We are unable to take the view of the learned Judge that the plaintiff's evidence does not establish a prima facet case for relief. We think that the plaintiff's evidence establishes a prima facie case for relief and that the learned Judge ought to have heard any evidence which the defendant was in a position to adduce and to have dealt with the case after hearing that evidence. We must, accordingly, set aside the decree of the learned Judge and send back the case for trial. In our opinion, the portion of the decree in the suit of 1869 which orders that the plaintiff (in that suit) and his successors should appoint any future Deputy from the male descendants of the defendant (in that suit), as we read the decree, was an order by consent. This being so, it does not have the effect of altering the terms of trust as created in 1787. See Ramasawmi Naick v. Ramasami Chetti 30 M. 255 : 2 M.L.T. 167 : 17 M.L.J. 201. As regards any scheme which the learned Judge may think fit to settle, it seems to us that although the consent decree in the suit of 1869 gives the present plaintiff no right in law to be appointed a Deputy, the arrangement come to in 1869 might well be taken into consideration in settling the terms of the scheme. The costs will be dealt with by the learned Judge on the Original Side. The question of the admissibility of the documents, which Boddam, J., declined to admit in evidence, will be dealt with by the learned Judge on the Original Side. We also leave it to the learned Judge to decide whether the plaintiff should be allowed to call any further evidence.


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