✦ Madras High Court

S.SarvothamanAdopted v. M/s.N.Selvaradjalu Chetty Trust And 2 Others And 2 Othersrepresented by its Chairman

A D MARIA CLETE3 min read

Case at a glance

Key paragraphs

  • Para 55. Further, one of the essential requirements for maintaining an application under Section 3 of the Act is that the applicant should establish that he is a person interested in the trust. Such question has to be examined on the basis of the pleadings already…

Judgment

A No. 4465 of 2022__________Page1 of 4IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 22-06-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETEA No. 4465 of 2022 O.P.No.647 of 2012S.SarvothamanAdopted son of Late Somasundaram Chettiar, No.79, 6th Main Road, Mahaveer Nagar, Pondicherry 605 008...Applicant(s)Vs1.M/s.N.Selvaradjalu Chetty Trust And 2 Others And 2 Othersrepresented by its Chairman, Dr.H.B.N.Shetty, IAS (retired) No.17, 1st Street, Indra Nagar, Adyar, Chennai 600 0202.Mrs. Rasul Beevi25/1, Saiva Muthiamudali Street, Chennai 600 001.3.Mrs. Nahima Begum28/10, Venkatasamy Street, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004...Respondent(s)To amend the above O.P.NO.647 of 2012 by inserting the paragraph 11a, 11b, and the genealogy chart in the above petition. For Applicant(s):M/s. M. Devaraj And VijaykumarFor Respondent(s):Mr.V.Kalyanaramanfor M/s.Aiyar & Dolia for R2 & R3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A No. 4465 of 2022__________Page2 of 4ORDERThis application has been filed seeking amendment of the main Original Petition filed under Section 3 of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920.

2.

The Original Petition was instituted in the year 2012. The relief contemplated under Section 3 of the Act is of a limited and summary nature. The provision enables a person having an interest in a charitable or religious trust to seek directions of the Court for furnishing particulars regarding the nature and objects of the trust, its value, condition, management and application of the trust properties and income, and for examination and audit of the accounts of the trust for a period of three years preceding the date of the application.

3.

In the present case, the Original Petition having been filed in the year 2012, the enquiry, if any, would substantially relate to the affairs of the trust during the period immediately preceding the filing of the petition, namely from 2009 to 2012. Admittedly, nearly fourteen years have elapsed thereafter and the Original Petition itself has remained pending.

4.

The proceedings under the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A No. 4465 of 2022__________Page3 of 4are not in the nature of a civil suit involving adjudication of title, status, succession or other disputed civil rights. The scope of enquiry under Section 3 is circumscribed by the statute. The proposed amendment seeks to introduce matters relating to genealogy and other issues which travel beyond the limited scope of the proceedings. Such questions are neither necessary nor relevant for deciding the relief sought in the Original Petition.

5.

Further, one of the essential requirements for maintaining an application under Section 3 of the Act is that the applicant should establish that he is a person interested in the trust. Such question has to be examined on the basis of the pleadings already available on record. The proposed amendment, sought after an inordinate delay of about fourteen years, cannot be permitted to enlarge the scope of the proceedings or convert a summary enquiry into a roving investigation on matters foreign to the Act.6. Having regard to the nature of the proceedings, the extraordinary delay, the stale character of the relief sought in the main petition and the irrelevance of the proposed amendments to the issues arising for consideration, this Court is of the view that the present application lacks bona fides. It appears to have been filed only to protract the proceedings and keep the lis pending indefinitely. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A No. 4465 of 2022__________Page4 of 4DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.DPQ7. Accordingly, A.No.4465 of 2025 is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) payable to the 1st Respondent Trust.22-06-2026Index: Yes/NoDPQA No. 4465 of 2022

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Madras High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments