High Court · 2025
Case Details
A. Nos. 1019 and 1020 of 2025inC.S. No. 567 of 1949IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 09.09.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULAA. Nos. 1019 and 1020 of 2025inC.S. No. 567 of 1949A. No.1019 of 2025:-C.A.Ganesan...ApplicantVs.Oleti Sriramulu Chetty (deceased)Oleti Radiah Chetty (deceased)Chandruluru Cunniah Chetty (deceased)C.Anjaneyalu Chetty (deceased)1.Oleti Sakunthala2.Suryakumari3.A.B.Pushpalatha4.G.Samanthakam5.G.Sathish6.Ramesh Kumar7.Premakumari8.Jayammal Jain Memorial Test Rep. by Mr.Ramesh Kumar No.145/104, Govindappa Naicken Street George Town, Chennai-600001.9.A.S.Balasubramanian ...Respondents/ 3rd parties Page 1 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A. Nos. 1019 and 1020 of 2025inC.S. No. 567 of 1949Prayer : This application has been filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with Clause 13 of Letters Patent, praying to withdraw the suit in O.S. No. 551 of 2023, on the file of the XI Assistant, City Civil Court, Chennai and to transfer the same to the file of this Court to be tried along with the above suit in C.S. No. 567 of 1949 on the file of this Court.For applicant : Ms.G.SumitraFor Respondents: Mr.D.Madanchand Chopda (D1 & D2)A. No. 1020 of 2025:-C.A.Ganesan...ApplicantVs.Oleti Sriramulu Chetty (deceased)Oleti Radiah Chetty (deceased)Chandruluru Cunniah Chetty (deceased)C.Anjaneyalu Chetty (deceased)1.Oleti Sakunthala2.Suryakumari3.A.B.Pushpalatha4.G.Samanthakam5.G.Sathish6.Ramesh Kumar7.Premakumari8.Jayammal Jain Memorial Test Rep. by Mr.Ramesh Kumar No.145/104, Govindappa Naicken Street George Town, Chennai-600001.Page 2 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A. Nos. 1019 and 1020 of 2025inC.S. No. 567 of 19499.A.S.Balasubramanian ...Respondents/ 3rd parties Prayer : This application has been filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with Clause 13 of Letters Patent, praying to stay all further proceedings in the suit in O.S. No. 551 of 2023, on the file of the XI Assistant, City Civil Court, Chennai, pending disposal of the above suit in C.S. No. 567 of 1949.For applicant : Ms.G.SumitraFor Respondents: Mr.D.Madanchand Chopda (D1 & D2) C O M M O N O R D E RThe applications have been filed by the applicant, who claims himself as one of the legal heirs of the Founder Trustee, viz., Oleti Guruvajamma, who had founded a Charitable Trust, viz., Oleti Guruvajamma Charities Trust. 2. Originally, a suit had been filed in C.S. No. 567/1949 to formulate a scheme decree in respect of the administration of the Trust. Subsequently, the parties had entered into a compromise dated 06.07.1953, which had been filed. In accordance with the terms of the compromise, a scheme decree was also framed in the year 1953. As per the scheme decree, Page 3 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A. Nos. 1019 and 1020 of 2025inC.S. No. 567 of 1949vacancy in the office of the Trusteeship has to be filled up as per the terms therein. 3. The applicant has filed the application in A. No. 5902 of 2016 by alleging that the terms of succession of the office of the Trusteeship needs to be modified in view of certain contingency that has arisen due to non-availability of the member of the Oleti family or Chandaluru family subsequent to the death of one Trustee, viz., Anjaneyalu Chetty. 4. For the sake of clarity, the relevant clause of the scheme decree is extracted below:-“(4) That the 1st plaintiff and the said C.Anjaneyalu Chetty shall be Trustees for their respective lives and that if by death or otherwise any vacancy arises, the vacancy shall be filled up in the following manner:--(a) That if the vacancy relates to the office or Trusteeship held by the 1st plaintiff, the 1st plaintiff shall be entitled to nominate during his life time, if he intends to retire, any member of Oletti family, preference however being given to the 2nd plaintiff herein at that time if he is ali and if such vacancy arises by the death of the 1st plaintiff, the 2nd plaintiff, if he is alive by then, or any respectable member of the Oletti family as far as possible residing at Madras shall be substituted as Trustee in the place of the 1st plaintiff;Page 4 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A. Nos. 1019 and 1020 of 2025inC.S. No. 567 of 1949(b) That if the vacancy arises by the retirement or resignation of C.Anjaneyalu Chetty, such vacancy shall be filled up by nomination duty effected by C.Anjaneyalu Chetty of any Vysya gentlemen residing at Madras, in his place and that if such vacancy be caused by the death of C.Anjaneyalu Chetty, such vacancy shall be filled up by any respectable gentlemen belonging to the Chanduluru family and as far as possible a resident of Madras:(c) That in case the office of the Trusteeship for the trust, as aforesaid, falls vacant by reason of no nomination having been effected as aforesaid by either the 1st plaintiff or C.Anjaneyalu Chetty or by reason of any suitable person not being available to take up the office of the said Trusteeship in accordance with the conditions as aforesaid, then it shall be competent to any person affected to move this Court for suitable directions to fill up such vacancies;”5. The applicants in A. No. 3861 of 2024 claims that they would be eligible persons to succeed the Trusteeship as per the terms of Clause 4 sub-clause (a) of the scheme decree, but the applicant in A. Nos. 5902 of 2016, 1019 and 1020 of 2025 had got a modification to the scheme decree by filing the application in A. No. 5902 of 2016 and got himself appointed as one of the Trustees. Since the above order has been passed at the back of the applicants in A. No. 3861 of 2024 without they being impleaded as parties, now the application in A. No. 3864 of 2024 has been filed to set aside the order dated 27.11.2020, through which the applicant in A. Nos. 5902 of 2015, 1019 and 1020 of 2025 has entered into the administration of Page 5 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A. Nos. 1019 and 1020 of 2025inC.S. No. 567 of 1949the Trust as a Trustee. 6. The application in A. No. 1019 of 2025 has been filed by the applicant, who has been appointed as a Trustee due to the order modifying the scheme decree made on 27.11.2020, to withdraw the suit in O.S. No. 551 of 2023 on the file of the XI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai and to transfer the same to the file of this Court to be tried along with the suit in C.S. No. 567 of 1949. The application in A. No. 1020 of 2025 has been filed by the same applicant to stay all further proceedings in the suit in O.S. No. 551 of 2023 on the file of the XI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai pending disposal of the suit in C.S. No. 567 of 19497. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 551 of 2023/the 4th respondent in A. Nos. 1019 and 1020 of 2025, who claims himself as a lessee of one of the Trust properties, has filed a suit for restoration of possession on the allegation that the 1st defendant therein/the applicant in A. Nos. 1019 and 1020 of 2025 had dispossessed her consequent to his appointment as a Trustee made in pursuant to the order dated 27.11.2020 made in A. No. 5902 of 2016. Page 6 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A. Nos. 1019 and 1020 of 2025inC.S. No. 567 of 19498. The only objection of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 551 of 2023/the 4th respondent in A. Nos. 1019 and 1020 of 2025 is that the disposal of the proceedings now pending before this Court in the applications in C.S. No. 567 of 1949 will have its repercussion over the issue involved in O.S. No. 551 of 2023.9. Admittedly, the suit in C.S. No. 567 of 1949 has been filed for framing a scheme and that got disposed long back in view of the compromise entered into by the parties and the Trust is being administered in terms of the compromise. A modification has been made in appointing the Trusteeship just recently pursuant to the order passed in A. No. 5902 of 2016 and the applicant in A. Nos. 5902 of 2016, 1019 and 1020 of 2025 got himself appointed as a Trustee for the administration of the Trust. So the modification order that has been already made or any other modifications that may be made to the scheme decree already made in C.S. No. 567 of 1949 cannot be a reason to withdraw the suit in O.S. No. 551 of 2023 on the file of the XI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai to the file of this Court to be tried along with the suit in C.S. No. 567 of 1949 which is not pending Page 7 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A. Nos. 1019 and 1020 of 2025inC.S. No. 567 of 1949before this Court. 10. At the best, if the applicant in A. Nos. 5902 of 2016, 1019 and 1020 of 2025 deems it fit, he can move an application before the trial Court itself in O.S. No. 551 of 2023 to stay the proceedings until the application in A. No. 3861 of 2024 is disposed and the entitlement of Trusteeship for the applicant in A. Nos. 5902 of 2016, 1019 and 1020 of 2025 to the Trust could be confirmed without any hurdles. So in any probability and possibility, I do not find any valid reason to withdraw O.S. No. 551 of 2023 from the file of the XI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai to try it along with C.S. No. 567 of 1949 or to stay all further proceedings in the suit in O.S. No. 551 of 2023 on the file of the XI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.11. As the suit in C.S. No. 567 of 1949 has already been disposed, the very basis for the application filed to transfer the other suit itself is wrong. 12. Hence, the applications in A. Nos. 1019 and 1020 of 2025 are dismissed. No costs. Page 8 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A. Nos. 1019 and 1020 of 2025inC.S. No. 567 of 194909.09.2025Maya 1/2Page 9 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A. Nos. 1019 and 1020 of 2025inC.S. No. 567 of 1949Dr.R.N.MANJULA, J.MayaA. Nos. 1019 and 1020 of 2025inC.S. No. 567 of 1949Dated : 09.09.20251/2Page 10 of 10
A. Nos. 1019 and 1020 of 2025inC.S. No. 567 of 1949IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 09.09.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULAA. Nos. 1019 and 1020 of 2025inC.S. No. 567 of 1949A. No.1019 of 2025:-C.A.Ganesan...ApplicantVs.Oleti Sriramulu Chetty (deceased)Oleti Radiah Chetty (deceased)Chandruluru Cunniah Chetty (deceased)C.Anjaneyalu Chetty (deceased)1.Oleti Sakunthala2.Suryakumari3.A.B.Pushpalatha4.G.Samanthakam5.G.Sathish6.Ramesh Kumar7.Premakumari8.Jayammal Jain Memorial Test Rep. by Mr.Ramesh Kumar No.145/104, Govindappa Naicken Street George Town, Chennai-600001.9.A.S.Balasubramanian ...Respondents/ 3rd parties Page 1 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A. Nos. 1019 and 1020 of 2025inC.S. No. 567 of 1949Prayer : This application has been filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with Clause 13 of Letters Patent, praying to withdraw the suit in O.S. No. 551 of 2023, on the file of the XI Assistant, City Civil Court, Chennai and to transfer the same to the file of this Court to be tried along with the above suit in C.S. No. 567 of 1949 on the file of this Court.For applicant : Ms.G.SumitraFor Respondents: Mr.D.Madanchand Chopda (D1 & D2)A. No. 1020 of 2025:-C.A.Ganesan...ApplicantVs.Oleti Sriramulu Chetty (deceased)Oleti Radiah Chetty (deceased)Chandruluru Cunniah Chetty (deceased)C.Anjaneyalu Chetty (deceased)1.Oleti Sakunthala2.Suryakumari3.A.B.Pushpalatha4.G.Samanthakam5.G.Sathish6.Ramesh Kumar7.Premakumari8.Jayammal Jain Memorial Test Rep. by Mr.Ramesh Kumar No.145/104, Govindappa Naicken Street George Town, Chennai-600001.Page 2 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A. Nos. 1019 and 1020 of 2025inC.S. No. 567 of 19499.A.S.Balasubramanian ...Respondents/ 3rd parties Prayer : This application has been filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with Clause 13 of Letters Patent, praying to stay all further proceedings in the suit in O.S. No. 551 of 2023, on the file of the XI Assistant, City Civil Court, Chennai, pending disposal of the above suit in C.S. No. 567 of 1949.For applicant : Ms.G.SumitraFor Respondents: Mr.D.Madanchand Chopda (D1 & D2) C O M M O N O R D E RThe applications have been filed by the applicant, who claims himself as one of the legal heirs of the Founder Trustee, viz., Oleti Guruvajamma, who had founded a Charitable Trust, viz., Oleti Guruvajamma Charities Trust. 2. Originally, a suit had been filed in C.S. No. 567/1949 to formulate a scheme decree in respect of the administration of the Trust. Subsequently, the parties had entered into a compromise dated 06.07.1953, which had been filed. In accordance with the terms of the compromise, a scheme decree was also framed in the year 1953. As per the scheme decree, Page 3 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A. Nos. 1019 and 1020 of 2025inC.S. No. 567 of 1949vacancy in the office of the Trusteeship has to be filled up as per the terms therein. 3. The applicant has filed the application in A. No. 5902 of 2016 by alleging that the terms of succession of the office of the Trusteeship needs to be modified in view of certain contingency that has arisen due to non-availability of the member of the Oleti family or Chandaluru family subsequent to the death of one Trustee, viz., Anjaneyalu Chetty. 4. For the sake of clarity, the relevant clause of the scheme decree is extracted below:-“(4) That the 1st plaintiff and the said C.Anjaneyalu Chetty shall be Trustees for their respective lives and that if by death or otherwise any vacancy arises, the vacancy shall be filled up in the following manner:--(a) That if the vacancy relates to the office or Trusteeship held by the 1st plaintiff, the 1st plaintiff shall be entitled to nominate during his life time, if he intends to retire, any member of Oletti family, preference however being given to the 2nd plaintiff herein at that time if he is ali and if such vacancy arises by the death of the 1st plaintiff, the 2nd plaintiff, if he is alive by then, or any respectable member of the Oletti family as far as possible residing at Madras shall be substituted as Trustee in the place of the 1st plaintiff;Page 4 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A. Nos. 1019 and 1020 of 2025inC.S. No. 567 of 1949(b) That if the vacancy arises by the retirement or resignation of C.Anjaneyalu Chetty, such vacancy shall be filled up by nomination duty effected by C.Anjaneyalu Chetty of any Vysya gentlemen residing at Madras, in his place and that if such vacancy be caused by the death of C.Anjaneyalu Chetty, such vacancy shall be filled up by any respectable gentlemen belonging to the Chanduluru family and as far as possible a resident of Madras:(c) That in case the office of the Trusteeship for the trust, as aforesaid, falls vacant by reason of no nomination having been effected as aforesaid by either the 1st plaintiff or C.Anjaneyalu Chetty or by reason of any suitable person not being available to take up the office of the said Trusteeship in accordance with the conditions as aforesaid, then it shall be competent to any person affected to move this Court for suitable directions to fill up such vacancies;”5. The applicants in A. No. 3861 of 2024 claims that they would be eligible persons to succeed the Trusteeship as per the terms of Clause 4 sub-clause (a) of the scheme decree, but the applicant in A. Nos. 5902 of 2016, 1019 and 1020 of 2025 had got a modification to the scheme decree by filing the application in A. No. 5902 of 2016 and got himself appointed as one of the Trustees. Since the above order has been passed at the back of the applicants in A. No. 3861 of 2024 without they being impleaded as parties, now the application in A. No. 3864 of 2024 has been filed to set aside the order dated 27.11.2020, through which the applicant in A. Nos. 5902 of 2015, 1019 and 1020 of 2025 has entered into the administration of Page 5 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A. Nos. 1019 and 1020 of 2025inC.S. No. 567 of 1949the Trust as a Trustee. 6. The application in A. No. 1019 of 2025 has been filed by the applicant, who has been appointed as a Trustee due to the order modifying the scheme decree made on 27.11.2020, to withdraw the suit in O.S. No. 551 of 2023 on the file of the XI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai and to transfer the same to the file of this Court to be tried along with the suit in C.S. No. 567 of 1949. The application in A. No. 1020 of 2025 has been filed by the same applicant to stay all further proceedings in the suit in O.S. No. 551 of 2023 on the file of the XI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai pending disposal of the suit in C.S. No. 567 of 19497. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 551 of 2023/the 4th respondent in A. Nos. 1019 and 1020 of 2025, who claims himself as a lessee of one of the Trust properties, has filed a suit for restoration of possession on the allegation that the 1st defendant therein/the applicant in A. Nos. 1019 and 1020 of 2025 had dispossessed her consequent to his appointment as a Trustee made in pursuant to the order dated 27.11.2020 made in A. No. 5902 of 2016. Page 6 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A. Nos. 1019 and 1020 of 2025inC.S. No. 567 of 19498. The only objection of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 551 of 2023/the 4th respondent in A. Nos. 1019 and 1020 of 2025 is that the disposal of the proceedings now pending before this Court in the applications in C.S. No. 567 of 1949 will have its repercussion over the issue involved in O.S. No. 551 of 2023.9. Admittedly, the suit in C.S. No. 567 of 1949 has been filed for framing a scheme and that got disposed long back in view of the compromise entered into by the parties and the Trust is being administered in terms of the compromise. A modification has been made in appointing the Trusteeship just recently pursuant to the order passed in A. No. 5902 of 2016 and the applicant in A. Nos. 5902 of 2016, 1019 and 1020 of 2025 got himself appointed as a Trustee for the administration of the Trust. So the modification order that has been already made or any other modifications that may be made to the scheme decree already made in C.S. No. 567 of 1949 cannot be a reason to withdraw the suit in O.S. No. 551 of 2023 on the file of the XI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai to the file of this Court to be tried along with the suit in C.S. No. 567 of 1949 which is not pending Page 7 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A. Nos. 1019 and 1020 of 2025inC.S. No. 567 of 1949before this Court. 10. At the best, if the applicant in A. Nos. 5902 of 2016, 1019 and 1020 of 2025 deems it fit, he can move an application before the trial Court itself in O.S. No. 551 of 2023 to stay the proceedings until the application in A. No. 3861 of 2024 is disposed and the entitlement of Trusteeship for the applicant in A. Nos. 5902 of 2016, 1019 and 1020 of 2025 to the Trust could be confirmed without any hurdles. So in any probability and possibility, I do not find any valid reason to withdraw O.S. No. 551 of 2023 from the file of the XI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai to try it along with C.S. No. 567 of 1949 or to stay all further proceedings in the suit in O.S. No. 551 of 2023 on the file of the XI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.11. As the suit in C.S. No. 567 of 1949 has already been disposed, the very basis for the application filed to transfer the other suit itself is wrong. 12. Hence, the applications in A. Nos. 1019 and 1020 of 2025 are dismissed. No costs. Page 8 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A. Nos. 1019 and 1020 of 2025inC.S. No. 567 of 194909.09.2025Maya 1/2Page 9 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A. Nos. 1019 and 1020 of 2025inC.S. No. 567 of 1949Dr.R.N.MANJULA, J.MayaA. Nos. 1019 and 1020 of 2025inC.S. No. 567 of 1949Dated : 09.09.20251/2Page 10 of 10