Natesan Pillai v. Radhakrishan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated: 6.6.2007Coram:The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN C.R.P.(NPD) No.833 of 2003Natesan Pillai.. Petitionervs.Radhakrishan.. RespondentRevision Petition filed against the order dated 26.12.2002 made inO.S.No.68/1948 as amended by O.S.No.17/1960, on the file of the PrincipalSub Court (Scheme Court), Mayiladuthurai.For Petitioner: Mr.S.SountharFor Respondent: Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, Senior counsel, for Mr.A.Muthukumar. ORDER: This Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated26.12.2002 made in O.S.No.68/1948 as amended by O.S.No.17/1960, on thefile of the Principal Sub Court (Scheme Court), Mayiladuthurai. 2.The appointment of the respondent as a trustee of A.V.Charities inthe vacancy caused by one Thiru Sethuraman by the scheme court on26.12.2002 in O.S.No.68/1948 as amended by O.S.No.17/1960 by the PrincipalSub Court, Mailadudurai (scheme court) has been challenged by the revisionpetitioner in this Civil Revision petition.3.A.V.Charities, Myladudhurai is a Trust governed by a scheme decreemade in O.S.No.68/1948 as amended in O.S.No.17/1960 on the file of thePrincipal Sub-Judge, Myladudhurai. The management of the trust vest in aBoard of trustees consisting of 6 trustees. While appointing the trusteesto the Board, the members of the original 5 families which gave theoriginal endowment, namely, (1)Anbanathapuram family, (2)Pallavarayanpettai family, (3)Enathimangalam family (4)Karukudi family and(5) Kanganaputhur family are to be appointed as far as possible. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.Out of the 6 posts of trustees 4 became vacant during the relevanttime. In those 4 vacancies people from Anbanathapuram, Karukudi,Pallavarayanpettai and kanganaputhur families were holding the posts oftrustees before they became vacant. Therefore 4 trustees were to beappointed and the chairman of the trustees wrote letters to the scheme court requesting the court to fill up the 4 vacancies. Arequisition was made by the Chairman in his letter dated 6.4.2002requesting the scheme court to consider the vacancy occupied by ThiruK.Sethuraman belonging to Karukudi family as a general vacancy instead ofa vacancy for the Karukudi family. This request dated 6.4.2002 wasrejected by the scheme court by its letter dated 8.4.2002. Thereafter thescheme court after going through the application submitted by the eligiblecandidates appointed 4 trustees, belonging to the 4 families in its orderdated 26.12.2002.5.The respondent herein was appointed as a trustee by the scheme courton behalf of Karukudi family and this appointment alone was challengedbefore this court by the petitioner alone, who also submitted anapplication to consider him for the appointment of trustee in the place ofThiru K.Sethuraman who was holding the post earlier.6.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan,learned Senior Counsel for the respondent. I have also perused thedocuments filed and the judgments referred to by them in support of theirsubmissions.7.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the schemecourt is wrong in considering the vacancy as a vacancy belonging toKarukudi family and rejecting the application of the petitioner. Herelied on the earlier decision of this court with respect to very sametrust made in C.R.P.No.448/1998 dated 23.2.98.8.Per contra, Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, the learned Senior Counsel for therespondent submitted that the scheme court has correctly appointed therespondent as the trustee and there is no illegality in his appointment.He further submitted that having not challenged the order of the schemecourt dated 8.4.2002 rejecting the request of the Chairman of the Board totreat the vacancy as a general vacancy, it is not open to the petitionerto challenge the order of the scheme court now. The learned SeniorCounsel also drew support from the very same decision dated 23.2.98 madein C.R.P.No.448/98.9.I have considered the rival submissions carefully with regard tofacts and citations.10.By its order dated 26.12.2002 the scheme court appointed 4 trusteesin the existing vacancies and the appointment of the respondent alone ischallenged before this court by the petitioner. It is his case thatalready a trustee is very much there representing Karukudi family and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ therefore the vacancy caused after the period of Thiru K.Sethuraman shouldhave been considered as general vacancy.11.I am unable to accept the contentions raised by the petitioner.12.It is not in dispute that a request was made by the Chairman of theBoard by letter dated 6.4.2002 requesting the scheme court to treat thevacancy caused by the efflux of time of membership of Thiru K.Sethuramanas general or common vacancy. The scheme court by its letter dated8.4.2002 rejected this request by informing that even though ThiruV.Arunachalam belonging to Karukudi family was appointed as a trustee, hewas appointed in the common vacancy and therefore the present vacancy hasto be considered only from the Karukudi family. As rightly pointed out bythe learned Senior counsel, this letter was not at all challenged by thepetitioner herein at the appropriate time and having not done so it is notnow open for him to challenge the appointment of the respondent made bythe scheme court.13.On the basis of the letter dated 8.4.2002 the scheme courtconsidered only the applicants who belonged to Karukudi family. As therevision petitioner did not belong to the Karukudi family the scheme courtrejected his application and considered the other applicants and finallyappointed the respondent herein as the trustee. The petitioner hereinbelonged to Pallavarayanapettai family and the scheme court in the verysame order dated 26.12.2002 appointed one Thiru R.Sajjal, S/o.Sri RammohanShanmugam as a trustee belonging to Pallavarayanpettai family. Thereforeit cannot be said that by appointing the respondent herein as a trusteethere was no representation for the pallavarayanpettai family. Thepetitioner was appointed as a trustee belonging to pallavarayanpettaifamily by the scheme court on 21.4.1997 along with R.Sethuraman. But therevision petitioner resigned from the post of trusteeship by his letterdated 2.11.2001 and the same was accepted by the scheme court by its orderdated 5.11.2001 and in his place Thiru V.Arunachalam was appointed as amember of the Board of Trustees. When the petitioner was holding the postof trusteeship S.Alagesan was also holding the post of trusteeshiprepresenting Pallavarayanpettai family. Therefore considering the factthat there are 6 posts and only five families, there is always apossibility of one family getting two posts. 14.In CRP.No.448/98, the revision petitioner's appointment as atrustee by the scheme court by its order dated 21.4.97 was challengedbefore this court by one C.Senthilvel, on the ground that thePallavarayanpetta family was already represented by one Alagesan andtherefore the present revision petitioner's appointment, who also belongsto very same Pallavarayanpettai family was bad. While rejecting thecontentions of the revision petitioner in CRP No.448/98, this court byorder dated 23.2.98 held that a reading of clause 5(c) of the scheme makesit clear that the scheme court shall proceed to call for applications andmake appointments to the vacancies and give regard to the representation https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the original 5 families and the scheme court is given the discretion totake note of the efficient administration while giving representation toeach family.15.In the light of the above discussions and the decision of thiscourt made in CRP No.448/98, I do not find any infirmity in the order ofthe scheme court dated 26.12.2002 by appointing the respondent as atrustee of A.V.Charities.16.Hence I find no merits in this Civil Revision Petition and the sameis dismissed. No costs. C.M.P.No.8773/2003 is also dismissed. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.sks To1. The Principal Subordinate Judge,The Principal Sub Court[Scheme Court]Mayiladuthurai.2. The Record Keeper, VR Section, High Court, Madras.+ 1 CC To Mr. S.Sounthar, Advocate SR NO.32983+ 1 CC To Mr. A.Muthukumar Advocate SR NO.31847C.R.P.(NPD)833/03.Bs[co]Gp/18.6