Allowed

M.Narayanasami v. G.Govindaraj Present Rustee

Madras HC18 Sept 2018CRP/2733/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras, in a revision under Article 227, set aside an order refusing to file a petition seeking impleadment as a trustee. The Court held that the issue of trustee status must be substantiated during the trial and the registry erred in requiring the trust deed upfront.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's application was directed to be taken on file and numbered within one week. The docket order refusing it was set aside.

M.Narayanasami Vs G.Govindaraj Present Rustee — Property and Title | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 18.09.2018

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

C.R.P.No.2733 of 2018
in
C.M.P.No. 16059 of 2018
M.Narayanasami ... Petitioner
Vs
1.G.Govindaraj, S/o Gopalakrishnan
Present Trustee
Sri Venkatachalapathy Swamy Temple
2.Govindaraj
3.V.Nandakumar
4.V.Purusothaman
5.V.Venkatraj
6.V.Balaji ... Respondents

¶7

Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the docket order dated 13.03.2018 in I.A.Diary No. 8593 of 2017 in O.S.No.23 of 2015 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Mannargudi and allow the C.R.P.

¶8

For petitioner : Mr.D.Bharathy

¶9

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶10

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

The prayer sought for in the present revision is to to set aside the docket order dated 13.03.2018 in I.A.Diary No. 8593 of 2017 in O.S.No.23 of 2015 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Mannargudi.

¶13

The petitioner who claims to be a trustee of Sri Venkatachalapathy Swamy Temple situated at Odathurai, Tiruvarur District has filed the application seeking to implead himself in the present suit. The said application has been returned by the registry of the Subordinate Court, Mannargudi, stating that the legal heirship certificate of Venkatasamy and the records evidencing that the petitioner is a trustee are to be produced. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that though he has produced the legal heirship certificate of Venkatasamy, he is unable to produce the trust deed, which is of the year 1866.

¶14

In my view, the issue is as to whether the petitioner is a trustee or

¶15

not would be established during the course of enquiry and such, the registry of the Sub Court, Mannargudi may not be justified in refusing the petition to take on file on this ground.

¶16

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶17

¶18

Hence, there shall be a direction to the learned Sub Judge, Mannargudi to take up the petitioner's application in I.A.Diary No. 8593 of 2017 in O.S.No.23 of 2015 and number the same, if it is otherwise in order, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

¶19

With the above observation and direction, the Civil Revision Petition
stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
18.09.2018
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
ak
To
The Sub Judge,
Mannargudi.

¶20

http://www.judis.nic.in

M.S.RAMESH, J.

C.R.P.No.2733 of 2018
in
C.M.P.No. 16059 of 2018
18.09.2018

¶25

http://www.judis.nic.in

M.Narayanasami v. G.Govindaraj Present Rustee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Narayanasami v. G.Govindaraj Present Rustee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Venkatesan, M/61 Yrs Vs Mr.S.Sudhakar

A.Inayathullah Vs Zulaikha Begum Died

K.Palani Vs Krishnaveni

Prema Vs Jegan Babu

J.Chenakesavalu Vs M/S Suresh Rexine House

Mark Jamian Vs P. Priyanka Prabakar