Case: S. Shanmugam Pillai And Ors Vs. K. Shanmugam Pillai And Ors

3 SCR 841 : AIR 1966 SC 323 : (1966) 1 SCJ 61, the word family in the context of a family arrangement is not to be understood in a narrow sense of being a group of persons who are recognised in law as having a right of succession or having a claim to a share in the property in dispute. If the dispute which is settled is one between near relations then the settlement of such a dispute can be considered as a family arrangement - See Ramcharan Dass case (supra)."27. Judged by the tests laid down in these decisions, we can reasonably come to the conclusion that Exs. B-2 and B-5 read together brought about a family settlement.28. This leaves us with the dispute relating to properties set out in Schedule I of the plaint.29. So far as the properties set out in Schedule I of the plaint are concerned, the High Court and the trial court have reached different conclusions. The trial court held that under Ex. A-2, Ramalingam Pillai had made a complete dedication of those properties for charities and the management of the charities had been left to V. Rm. Shanmugam Pillai and after him to his successors. On the basis of those conclusions that court held the alienation of those properties in invalid and not binding, on the plaintiffs. The High Court felt unable to come to any firm conclusion on the evidence on record, as to whether the dedication made under Ex. A-2 by Ramalingam Pillai was complete or partial. Further it came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are precluded from questioning the management of those properties by Defendants 1 to 4 in view of the various transactions between the parties referred to earlier.30. It may be noted that the parties are agreed that charities mentioned in Ex. A-2 have to be conducted in accordance with the directions given in Ex. A-2. The only question is who should conduct them. The further controversy between the parties is whether the dedication made under Ex. A-2 is partial or complete.31. We agree with the High Court that the evidence on record is not satisfactory enough to reach a firm conclusion as to the nature of the dedication. Plaintiffs have failed to adduce acceptable evidence as regards the income of the properties set apart for charities. That being so, even if we accept the estimate made by the trial court regarding the expenses to be incurred for conducting those charities, we have no basis to find out the extent of the surplus that is likely to be left in hands of the persons who manage those charities. Under these circumstances it is not possible to come to the conclusion that under Ex. A-2, Ramalingam Pillai had created a trust in respect of those properties for conducting the charities mentioned in Ex. A-2.32. As observed by this Court in Menakuru Dasaratharami Reddy and Another v. Duddukuru Subba Rao and Others (AIR 1957 SC 797 : 1957 SCR 1122 : 1957 SCJ 835.) , that dedication of a property to religious or charitable purposes may be either complete or partial. If the dedication is complete a trust in favour of a charity is created. If the dedication is partial, a trust in favour of charity is not created but a charge in favour of the charity is attached to and follows the property which retains it original private and secular character. Whether or not a dedication is complete would naturally be a question of fact to be determined in each case on the terms of the relevant document if the dedication in question was made under a document. In such a case it is always a matter of ascertaining the true intention of the parties, it is obvious that such an intention must be gathered on a fair an reasonable construction of the document considered as a whole. If the income of the property is substantially intended to be used for the purpose of charity and only an significant and minor portion of it is allowed to be used for the maintenance of the worshiper or the manager, it may be possible to take the view that dedication is complete. If, on the other hand, for the maintenance of charity a minor portion of the income is expected or required to be used and a substantial surplus is left in the hands of the manager or worshipper of his own private purposes, it would be difficult to accept the theory of complete dedication. Ex. A-2, after setting out the various charities to be conducted concluded by saying that "if, after conducting the said charities properly there be any surplus, the same shall be utilised by the said Shanmugam Pillai and his heirs for family expenses. They should also look after the same carefully and properly". This shows that the entire income of the properties set apart for charities was not thought to be necessary for conducting the charities. It was for the plaintiffs to establish that the dedication was complete and consequently there was a resulting trust. As they have failed to establish the same, for the purpose of this case, we have to proceed on the basis that the dedication was only partial and the properties retained the character of private properties. Therefore the widows of V. Rm. shanmugam Pillai had a beneficial interest in those properties - See Kalipada Chakraborti and Another v. Palani Bala Devi and Others (1953 SCR 503 : AIR 1953 SC 125 : 1953 SCJ 208.) . As seen earlier they had alienated their interest in those properties. For the reasons already mentioned, the plaintiffs are precluded from questioning the validity of those alienations. It is not open now to them to contend that the alienations in question are invalid. It is not necessary for us to decide in this case whether their successors can challenge those alienations. Suffice it to say that the plaintiffs are precluded from challenging those alienations.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]29. So far as the properties set out in Schedule I of the plaint are concerned, the High Court and the trial court have reached different conclusions. The trial court held that under Ex. A-2, Ramalingam Pillai had made a complete dedication of those properties for charities and the management of the charities had been left to V. Rm. Shanmugam Pillai and after him to his successors. On the basis of those conclusions that court held the alienation of those properties in invalid and not binding, on the plaintiffs. The High Court felt unable to come to any firm conclusion on the evidence on record, as to whether the dedication made under Ex. A-2 by Ramalingam Pillai was complete or partial. Further it came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are precluded from questioning the management of those properties by Defendants 1 to 4 in view of the various transactions between the parties referred to earlier.30. It may be noted that the parties are agreed that charities mentioned in Ex. A-2 have to be conducted in accordance with the directions given in Ex. A-2. The only question is who should conduct them. Thefurther controversy between the parties is whether the dedication made under Ex.complete.31. We agree with the High Court that the evidence on record is not satisfactory enough to reach a firm conclusion as to the nature of the dedication. Plaintiffs have failed to adduce acceptable evidence as regards the income of the properties set apart for charities. That being so, even if we accept the estimate made by the trial court regarding the expenses to be incurred for conducting those charities, we have no basis to find out the extent of the surplus that is likely to be left in hands of the persons who manage those charities. Under these circumstances it is not possible to come to the conclusion that under Ex. A-2, Ramalingam Pillai had created a trust in respect of those properties for conducting the charities mentioned in Ex. A-2.32. As observed by this Court in Menakuru Dasaratharami Reddy and Another v. Duddukuru Subba Rao and Others (AIR 1957 SC 797   : 1957 SCR 1122   : 1957 SCJ 835.)  , that dedication of a property to religious or charitable purposes may be either complete or partial. If the dedication is complete a trust in favour of a charity is created. If the dedication is partial, a trust in favour of charity is not created but a charge in favour of the charity is attached to and follows the property which retains it original private and secular character. Whetheror not a dedication is complete would naturally be a question of fact to be determined in each case on the terms of the relevant document if the dedication in question was made under a document.In such a case it is always a matter of ascertaining the true intention of the parties, it is obvious that such an intention must be gathered on a fair an reasonable construction of the document considered as a whole. If the income of the property is substantially intended to be used for the purpose of charity and only an significant and minor portion of it is allowed to be used for the maintenance of the worshiper or the manager, it may be possible to take the view that dedication is complete. If, on the other hand, for the maintenance of charity a minor portion of the income is expected or required to be used and a substantial surplus is left in the hands of the manager or worshipper of his own private purposes, it would be difficult to accept the theory of complete dedication. Ex. A-2, after setting out the various charities to be conducted concluded by saying that "if, after conducting the said charities properly there be any surplus, the same shall be utilised by the said Shanmugam Pillai and his heirs for family expenses. They should also look after the same carefully and properly". This shows that the entire income of the properties set apart for charities was not thought to be necessary for conducting the charities. It was for the plaintiffs to establish that the dedication was complete and consequently there was a resulting trust. As they have failed to establish the same, for the purpose of this case, we have to proceed on the basis that the dedication was only partial and the properties retained the character of private properties. Therefore the widows of V. Rm. shanmugam Pillai had a beneficial interest in those properties - See Kalipada Chakraborti and Another v. Palani Bala Devi and Others (1953 SCR 503   : AIR 1953 SC 125   : 1953 SCJ 208.)  . As seen earlier they had alienated their interest in those properties. For the reasons already mentioned, the plaintiffs are precluded from questioning the validity of those alienations. It is not open now to them to contend that the alienations in question are invalid. It is not necessary for us to decide in this case whether their successors can challenge those alienations. Suffice it to say that the plaintiffs are precluded from challenging those alienations.