Partly allowed

Dr.M.a.M.Ramaswamy Chettiar of Chettinad Charitable Trust, v. M.a.M.R.Muthiah

Madras HC21 Dec 2024OA/9/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Trust claiming under a Will sought injunction restraining respondents from alienating or encumbering five suit properties, alleging the first respondent's settlement deed in favour of his son was void. The court ordered status quo over the properties until disposal of both suits.

What did the court decide?

Status quo order protecting both parties' rights over suit schedule items 1 to 5 till disposal of both suits; no costs.

Dr.M.a.M.Ramaswamy Chettiar of Chettinad… — Succession and Inheritance | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

OA NO. 9 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 21-12-2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN

¶6

OA NO. 9 of 2019

¶7

¶8

CS NO. 11 OF 2019

¶9

Dr.M.A.M.Ramaswamy Chettiar of Chettinad Charitable Trust, Represented by its Managing Trustee Dr.A.C.Muthiah (aged 76 years) Chettinad House, R.A.Puram, Chennai 28

Applicant(s)

M.A.M.R.Muthiah

5th Floor, Rani Seethai Hall Building, 603-Anna Salai, Chennai 600 006 and another

¶14

Respondent(s)

¶15

For Applicant(s): M/s.S.Sithirai Anandam,

¶16

For Respondent(s): :Mr. T. Balaji for R1 : Mr. K.V. Babu for R2

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This application has been filed to pass an order of ad- interim injunction restraining the

¶19

respondents 1 & 2, their men, agents, servants, and anyone claiming under or through them

¶20

from in any manner creating any third party rights, encumbrance, transfer, alteration of

¶21

revenue and other records of the suit property item 1 to 5 described in the schedule pending

¶22

disposal of the above suit and pass such further or other orders as may deemed fit and proper

¶23

in the circumstances of this case and thus render justice.

¶24

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

¶25

2.The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Applicant trust was created by one

¶26

Dr.M.A.M.Ramaswamy, S/o. Sir.M.A.Muthiah Chettiar through and by a deed of declaration of Trust dated:09.02.2015 which is registered in Doc. No.5/2015, SRO Mylapore. In the Trust, the trustees are (i) Dr.M.A.M.Ramaswamy Chettiar (ii)Smt.Kumararani Meena Muthiah, (iii) Dr.A.C.Muthiah (iv) Mr.Ashwin C.Muthiah and (v) Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan. Dr.M.A.M.Ramaswamy expired on 02.12.2015 and thereafter the remaining four trustees are managing the Applicant Trust. It is further submitted that Dr.M.A.M.Ramaswamy Chettiar was the son of Sir.M.A.M.Muthiah Chettiar (died on 12.05.1984) and Rani Meyammai Achi (died on 01.03.1970). The said couple had another son namely one Mr.Kumara Raja Muthiah Chettiar, (died on 24.01.1970).

¶27

It has been further submitted that the 1st respondent herein falsely claims to be the adopted son and heir of Late.M.A.M.Ramaswamy Chettiar. Mr.M.A.M.Ramasamy was harassed and tortured by the 1st respondent when he was alive. Mr.M.A.M.Ramasamy had publicly and openly disowned and disavowed the 1st respondent during his life time. While Mr.M.A.M.Ramasamy executed a Will dated.18.02.2015 registered as document No.16 of 2015 in the SRO, Mylapore, the 1^st respondent settled the items 1 to 5 of the siot schedule properties to the 2^nd respondent which is invalid, unlawful, void and not binding Applicant https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

Trust. The 1st respondent has wilfully and fraudulently suppressed the Will dated 18.02.2015

¶29

executed by Mr.M.A.M.Ramaswamy and executed the above settlement deed in favour of the

¶30

2nd respondent for mala-fide reasons. The said settlement deed is neither valid nor binding on the applicant. However the 1st respondent is attempting to create and obtain revenue documents in his favour and mutate records and create encumbrances and third party rights regarding the properties enumerated as item 1 to 5 which are in the sole and lawful possession of the applicant trust. Hence, he seeks the relief as prayed for.

¶31

4.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent takes strong objections to the declaration of the Trust as alleged to have been executed by 1^st respondent's father, Late Dr.

¶32

M.A.M. Ramaswamy. The said declaration of Trust itself is a mechanism designed by Mr.

¶33

A.C. Muthiah, for the specific purpose of grabbing the family properties of Late Dr. M.A.M.

¶34

Ramaswamy, who have formed the alleged Trust only on paper. The allegation in the affidavit that 1^st respondent has falsely claimed to be the adopted son of Dr. M.A.M. Ramaswamy is untrue to the knowledge of Mr. A.C. Muthiah and the same is false and

¶35

frivolous. As per law, there is no bar conveying the properties vested in the 1^st respondent in favour of his son. The Applicant Trust has not been successful in probating the alleged Will

¶36

of late Dr. M.A.M. Ramaswamy and the same is pending adjudication in T.O.S. No. 27 of

¶37

2021 before this Hon'ble Court. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

5.It has been further submitted that a third party to the Settlement Deed cannot assail its

¶39

validity and that the 1^st respondent has every right to execute a document in favor of his son.

¶40

In the settlement deed executed on 18.05.2016, it is settled 1^st respondent's share of the valuable holdings in favor of his only son. The Applicant has omitted one of the properties mentioned in the Settlement Deed and only seeks for an Injunction for five properties. The Settlement Deed which is under challenge in the above suit is perfectly valid as per law and as discussed in the above paragraphs. As a prima facie case is in favour of the 1^st respondent and the balance of convenience is also in his favour, the present application is liable to be dismissed with costs.

¶41

6.The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent submits that the suit property has been settled by the 1st Respondent in favour of the 2nd Respondent under a valid Settlement Deed. The suit properties have been inherited by the 1st Respondent in his capacity as the only legal heir of Dr.M.A.M.Ramasamy Chettiar and in his capacity as the absolute owner, being the legal heir of Dr.M.A.M.Ramasamy Chettiar, the Settlement Deed was executed and registered in favour of the 2nd Respondent. Thus, by virtue of the said Settlement Deed, the 2nd Respondent has become the absolute owner of the suit property. After five years of filing the suit, the

¶42

Applicant apprehends that the Respondents will deal with the property and such a plea is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

strange in nature. In fact, after filing of the suit in the year 2019 till this day, no encumbrance

¶44

or transfer whatsoever has taken place over the suit property. Besides, the suit property is

¶45

undivided in nature and not by metes and bounds and the extent of the suit property is also huge. The Settlement Deed was much earlier to the Applicant instituted the O.P. for the grant of Letters of Administration.

¶46

7.It has been further submitted that there is no bar in executing the Settlement Deed before the Sub Registrar, Negamam, since one of the properties covered under the Settlement Deed situate within the jurisdiction of the said Sub Registrar's office. The Settlement Deed was executed on 08.05.2006, which was much earlier to the filing of O.P. for Letters of Administration. The Applicant has to clear the cloud over the execution of the alleged WILL, which was executed in a suspicious, surreptitious, surrounding circumstances. The alleged WILL and as well as the creation of the alleged Trust has been created in a suspicious manner, since during the said period, the grandfather of the 2nd Respondent is not keeping good health. The two witnesses in the documents are all servant maid. In any event, the grandfather of the 2nd Respondent would not have ventured in calling the servants to attest the WILL and Deed of Declaration. There is no title derived in the hands of the Applicant/Plaintiff to maintain the instant suit and as well as the Application. After filing the

¶47

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

¶48

present suit, the 2nd respondent has not alienated the suit property which is settled in favour

¶49

of him. Hence, the Application is liable to be dismissed with costs.

¶50

8.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶51

On perusal of the records, it is seen that Dr.M.A.M.Ramasamy Chettiar died on

¶52

02.12.2015. His wife predeceased him. It is alleged that during his life time, he executed a Deed of Declaration of Trust dated 09.02.2015 which is registered as Document No.5 of 2015 in SRO, Mylapore. Thereafter, he executed a Will dated 18.02.2015 which is registered in Document No.16 of 2015 in SRO, Mylapore, bequeathing various movable and immovable properties as mentioned in the Will in favour of the applicant Trust. In such circumstances, the Trustees of the Trust filed probate petition in O.P. No.894 of 2016 seeking to probate the

¶53

Will in which the 1^st respondent filed Caveat opposing the probate of the Will and the same has been converted into TOS No.27 of 2021 which is still pending before this Court for disposal.

¶54

It is alleged that after the demise of Dr.M.A.M.Ramasamy Chettiar, the 1^st respondent

¶55

being adopted son, has executed settlement deed by settling his own shares in the suit

¶56

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

¶57

schedule property whereas 6/32 shares in Item 1, 15/16 shares in Item No.2, 15/16 shares in

¶58

Item No.3, 1/2 share in Item Nos.4 and 5 in his son favour. Vide settlement deed dated 18.05.2016 which is registered in Document No.1689 of 2016 in SRO, Negamam, before filing of the aforesaid O.P by the Applicant. Having come to know the aforesaid Settlement Deed, the applicant/plaintiff filed the present suit in C.S.No.11 of 2019 seeking for declaration of the settlement deed is invalid, void and illegal and does not bind the plaintiff in respect of the Item No.1 to 5 since they are related to the Will dated 18.02.2015 along with the present application seeking for interim injunction.

¶59

Having considered facts and circumstance of the case and considering the two suits in C.S. No.11 of 2019 and TOS No.27 of 2021 which are still pending before this Court for final disposal, in respect of Items Nos.1 to 5 of the suit schedule mentioned properties and also in the interest of Justice, this Court is inclined to pass an order of Status-Quo to protect the rights of both parties till the disposal of both suits. 12. In the result, the Application is partly allowed. No costs.

¶60

21.12.2024 Index:Yes/No Web:Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking Lbm

¶61

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

A.A.NAKKIRAN,J.

Lbm

OA NO. 9 of 2019

CS NO. 11 OF 2019

¶67

21.12.2024

¶68

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

Dr.M.a.M.Ramaswamy Chettiar of Chettinad Charitable Trust, v. M.a.M.R.Muthiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.M.a.M.Ramaswamy Chettiar of Chettinad Charitable Trust, v. M.a.M.R.Muthiah

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

Talisma Corporation Private Limited Vs Tamil Nadu eGovernance Agency

N.Haridas Vs N.Yasodha and 2 Others

C.Deivanai Vs K.M.Kumarappan (Deceased) M.Kuppu (Decd) 1. N.Alagammal and 7 others

L.Rajasekaran and 3 others Vs G.Devaraj Naidu

W.Venkatesa Perumal Chetty (Deceased) 1.Amrutha alias Vedavalli and 3 others Vs W.Srinivasulu (Deceased) 1.W.Balaji and 2 others

Sivasri Madhavan Vs Ravikumar M Doss (Huf)