Dismissed

Paramakudi Sami Chettiyar Nanthavanam v. T.S.Megarajan

Madras HC8 Feb 2023CRP(MD)/2322/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed civil revision petitions filed by a Trust against an order impleading two parties claiming to be Trustees. The High Court confirmed the impleadment, noting a dispute on trusteeship status pending in a separate suit, and directed tenants to deposit rent.

What did the court decide?

Order allowing impleadment confirmed; tenants directed to deposit rent with respective courts; suits to be disposed by 31.08.2023.

Paramakudi Sami Chettiyar Nanthavanam Vs T.S.Megarajan — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.R.P.(PD)(MD).Nos.2322 to 2329 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 08.02.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)Nos.2322 to 2329 of 2022

¶7

and C.M.P(MD) Nos.11227, 11228, 11225, 11230, 11231, 11233, 11234 and 11235 of 2022

¶8

C.R.P(PD)(MD) No.2322 of 2022:

¶9

Paramakudi Sami Chettiyar Nanthavanam and building Private Trust Represented Through its Managing Trustee G.Mohan, S/o.Ganapathi Chettiyar, Door No.14/19, Thattara Santhu, Mela Masi Street, Madurai – 625 001. ... Petitioner / 1^st Respondent/ Plaintiff -vs-

¶10

T.S.Megarajan 2. R.Ragavan .... Respondents 1 & 2/Petitioners/ Proposed Defendants 2 and 3 3. Ramanathan .... 3^rd Respondent/ 2^nd Respondent/ 1^st Defendant

¶11

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the Fair and decretal order, dated 29.08.2022 passed in I.A.No.14 of 2022 in O.S.No.60 of 2021, on the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Paramakudi.

¶12

1/7

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

C.R.P.(PD)(MD).Nos.2322 to 2329 of 2022

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Jeyamohan for Mr.T.Bala Rathnakumar For Respondents : Mr.J Barathan for R1 and R2

¶16

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶17

The plaintiff has filed the present civil revision petitions, challenging

¶18

the order passed by the trial Court, in which, two defendants have been impleaded on the ground that they are also the Trustees of the plaintiff Trust.

¶19

2. All the present suits have been filed by the plaintiff Trust for the relief of ejectment of the tenants. The parties, who are impleaded as D2 and D3 in all the suits, claimed that they are also Trustees of the plaintiff Trust. However, the plaintiff Trust which is represented by the Managing Trustee, contends that those two proposed parties have voluntarily resigned from the Trusteeship and hence, they are not entitled to get themselves impleaded in the present suits.

¶20

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further contends that the trial Court, without considering the fact that whether the proposed parties are necessary parties to the suit, has proceeded to implead them. When the

¶21

2/7

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

C.R.P.(PD)(MD).Nos.2322 to 2329 of 2022

¶24

plaintiff Trust being the dominus litis, and opposed the impleadment of the proposed parties, the trial Court ought not to have impleaded them.

¶25

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that one of the parties, who claims to be the member of the plaintiff Trust had filed suit O.S.No.146 of 2020 on the file of the Sub Court, Paramakudi to declare the plaintiff Trust as a public Trust. In the said suit, the proposed parties have been arrayed as defendants 2 and 3. These defendants 2 and 3 have filed a counter claim in the said suit praying for the relief that they continue to be the Trustees of the plaintiff Trust. The said suit is pending.

¶26

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the impleaded parties have contended that they have not resigned from Trust and they continue to be the trustees. Whether they are the trustees of the plaintiff Trust, or not is to be decided by the learned Sub Judge, Paramakud in O.S.No.146 of 2020. Till then, they are necessary parties to the present suit for ejectment filed against the tenants. Hence, he prayed for sustaining the order of impleadment passed by the trial Court.

¶27

3/7

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

C.R.P.(PD)(MD).Nos.2322 to 2329 of 2022

¶30

6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

¶31

7. Admittedly, the plaintiff Trust is the landlord and the first defendant in all the suits is the tenant. Now, the dispute that had arisen in the present proceedings is that whether the proposed parties who were impleaded in the suit, are also trustees of the plaintiff Trust or not. Admittedly, the said issue is pending in O.S.No.146 of 2020. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that they have resigned, the learned counsel for the newly impleaded parties contends that they have never resigned and continued to be the trustees of the plaintiff Trust. It is also the apprehension on the part of the learned counsel for the petitioner that by getting themselves impleaded in the present suit, the impleaded parties would like to claim the status as a trustee and would attempt to collect rent from the tenants. Therefore, it is clear that there is a dispute with regard to the Management and Administration of the Trust between the Managing Trustee on one side and the newly impleaded parties on the other side.

¶32

4/7

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

C.R.P.(PD)(MD).Nos.2322 to 2329 of 2022

¶35

8. The learned counsel for the newly impleaded party submits that they

¶36

will not make any submission which are contra to the interest of the Trust which would in favour of the tenants.

¶37

9. In view of the above said facts, this Court is inclined to pass the

¶38

following order:

¶39

(i) The order allowing the impleading application stands confirmed;

¶40

(ii) Merely because the defendants 2 and 3 were impleaded in the present suit, they cannot claim the status of the Trustee and their claim depends upon the result in O.S.No.146/2020 pending on the file of the Sub Court, Paramakudi;

¶41

(iii) The tenants in the property are directed to deposit the rent in the respective suits, in which, they are arrayed as defendants; and

¶42

(iv) The learned District Munsif, Paramakudi, is directed to dispose of all the eight ejectment suits on or before 31.08.2023 .

¶43

5/7

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

C.R.P.(PD)(MD).Nos.2322 to 2329 of 2022

¶46

10. All the Civil Revision Petitions stand disposed of, in the above said

¶47

terms. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶48

08.02.2023

¶49

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ebsi

¶50

To 1. The Sub Court, Paramakudi.

¶51

The District Munsif, Paramakudi.

¶52

6/7

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

C.R.P.(PD)(MD).Nos.2322 to 2329 of 2022

¶55

R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.

¶56

ebsi

¶57

C.R.P(PD)(MD)Nos.2322 to 2329 of 2022

¶58

08.02.2023

¶59

7/7

¶60

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Paramakudi Sami Chettiyar Nanthavanam v. T.S.Megarajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paramakudi Sami Chettiyar Nanthavanam v. T.S.Megarajan

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

Albert Vs Palayyan

Justin Nirmalkumar, Vs Rama Reddiar

N.Nagarathinavel Vs Saroja (Died)

K.Sarojini Vs G.Pethanasamy

A.Mathu, Vs P.v.Raveendran

D. Thangaraj Pandian, Vs v. Chandrakumar