Skip to content


Arakkal Muttukalel Ummathi Ummathi Vs. Erambathil Kunhamad and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTrusts and Societies
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in7Ind.Cas.801
AppellantArakkal Muttukalel Ummathi Ummathi
RespondentErambathil Kunhamad and ors.
Excerpt:
trustees - joint trustees--death of a trustee--possession of trust property by a third person--rights of one deceased trustee passing to others--right to exclusive possession of the trust property--amendment of plaint--suit for exclusive possession--relief of joint possession. - - defendant and their claim for exclusive possession must fail......the judge finds that the 1st defendant was a 'self-constituted' trustee and came into the possession of the property as such on the death of her brother moidunni. the 1st defendant's case, which the judge apparently accepts, is that till pathamma's death they acted jointly as trustees. as the 1st defendant has been in possession of the office of trustee from 1886, she has now become a trustee and is entitled to continue in possession of lands. pathamma's interest has passed under the settlement exhibit b to the plaintiff and defendants nos. 3 and 4. they can only claim to be joint trustees with the 1st. defendant and their claim for exclusive possession must fail. we are unable in this cape to allow the plaintiff to convert the suit into one for joint possession as the plaintiff and.....
Judgment:

1. Moidunni and Pathamma were admittedly trustees. Moidunni died in 1885 and the 1st defendant took possession of the plaint lands after his death and has continued in possession ever since. The Judge finds that the 1st defendant was a 'self-constituted' trustee and came into the possession of the property as such on the death of her brother Moidunni. The 1st defendant's case, which the Judge apparently accepts, is that till Pathamma's death they acted jointly as trustees. As the 1st defendant has been in possession of the office of trustee from 1886, she has now become a trustee and is entitled to continue in possession of lands. Pathamma's interest has passed under the settlement Exhibit B to the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 3 and 4. They can only claim to be joint trustees with the 1st. defendant and their claim for exclusive possession must fail. We are unable in this cape to allow the plaintiff to convert the suit into one for joint possession as the plaintiff and the 4th defendant are in possession of other trust properties which are not the subject of suit.

2. We, therefore, set aside the decree of the District Judge and restore that of the Munsif with costs in this and in the lower appellate Court.


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