Dismissed

G. Mohan v. P.R. Pachiappa Chettiar

Madras HC16 Aug 2018A/1874/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application by an individual who admitted neither being a party to the underlying suit nor a member of the Board of Trustees. Noting the lack of locus standi and the failure to initiate necessary impleadment proceedings, the Court held that no case was made out for granting the direction to render accounts.

What did the court decide?

The proposed application was dismissed for lack of case made out and absence of locus standi.

G. Mohan Vs P.R. Pachiappa Chettiar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION) THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018 THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH A.No.1874 of 2014 in C.S.No.187 of 1966

¶4

P.R.Pachiappa Chettiar No.17, Kalathi Pillai Street, George Town, Madras. 2. C.S.Damodaram No.14, Avadanam Papier Road, Choolai, Madras.17.

¶5

T.Saravanaperumal No.133/4, Bheemasena Gardens, Mylapore, Madras 4. 4.V.Balachandra Chetty No.6, Kandappa Mudali Street, George Town, Madras-1. ... Plaintiff -Versus-

¶6

1.The Endowment Srimathi Thiruvalam Thayammal Propperities now represented by V.Delhi Basha Chettiar 2. K.S.Muthuvelu Chetty

¶7

... Defendants

¶8

A.No.1874 of 2017

¶9

G.Mohan, S/o. N.Gopal 8-B, Jagajeevanram Colony, Salaiyur, Chennai.

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶11

...Applicant/III Party

¶12

¶13

¶14

Residing at No.17, Kalathi, Pillai Street, G.T.Madras.

¶15

C.S.Damodaram, Residing at No.14, Avadanam Papier Road, Choolai, Madras-7.

¶16

T.Saravanaperumal, residing at No.133/4, Bheemasena Gardens, Mylapore, Madras-4.

¶17

4.V.Balachandra Chetty, residing At No.6, Kandappa Mudali Street, G.T.Madras -1.

¶18

...Respondents/Plaintiffs

¶19

G.Gopala Krishnamoorthy S/o. Balachandran Chettiar No.98, Waltax Road, Park Town, Chennai 600 003.

¶20

...5^th Respondent/Third Party

¶21

Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the 5^th respondent herein to render proper accounts and the details of the Endowments properties as set out in the above schedme decree dated 08.01.1969 in C.S.No.187 of 1966.

¶22

This Application coming on this day before this court for hearing, the court made the following order:

¶23

This application seeks a direction to the first respondent herein to render accounts and details of Endowments properties that have been set out in the scheme decree dated 08.01.1969 passed in C.S. No. 187 of 1966.

¶24

Clause 19 of the Scheme Decree, states as un-

¶25

der:

¶26

'19 Any of the parties to this suit

¶27

or any of the members of the Board of Trustees shall be at liberty to apply to this Court for alteration or amendment of

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶29

¶30

the provisions of the Scheme, in case such alteration or amendment is considered necessary in the interests of the Endowment. '

¶31

As per clause 19, it is thus only any of the parties to the suit or any member of the Board of Trustees, who is at liberty to apply to this Court for alteration or amendment of the provisions of the scheme, in case such alteration or amendment is considered necessary in the interests of the Endowment.

¶32

Clause 18 of the scheme permits any member of

¶33

the Board of Trustees to apply to the Court for appropriate directions in all matters concerning the administration and management of the Endowment in accordance with provisions of the scheme.

¶34

Admittedly, the applicant before the Court is neither a member of the Board of Trustees nor a party to the suit. A specific query was put to the learned counsel

¶35

as to what the locus standi of the applicant was to move the present application, to which learned counsel submitted that an impleadment application has been filed which would be listed in due course. The matter was adjourned to enable the learned counsel to move the application and have the same listed.

¶36

Today, a copy of an unnumbered application is circulated before the Court. It is not known whether this application has been filed at all. In any event, it has not been pursued.

¶37

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶38

¶39

In the light of the fact that the applicant is admittedly unconnected with the parties to the suit or with the subject matter of the suit and has made no move to implead himself in the interests of justice to enable the Court to verify if the scheme calls for alteration or modification, the Court is of the view that no case has been made out by the applicant and the present application is dismissed. Sd/.A.S.M.J 16.08.2018 //Certified to be a true copy// Dated this the th day of 2018. KY/31.08.2018 COURT OFFICER From 25.09.2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Order/Judgment Decree in this format.

¶40

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

G. Mohan v. P.R. Pachiappa Chettiar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Mohan v. P.R. Pachiappa Chettiar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

L. Victor Vs

R.a.Ramachandran Vs S.Subbiah

J.Jeyatha Vs the State of Tamilnadu

D.S.Ramesh Vs Dr.D.S.Manohar

N.Elamaran Vs the Official Assignee

M.Subramanian Vs the District Collector