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

1. This is a plaintiffs appeal by certificate. The plaintiffs sued for possession of the properties described in Schedules I and IV of the plaint as reversioners of on V. Rm. Shanmugam Pillai who admittedly was the last male holder of those properties as well as several other properties. They also claimed past and future mesne profits in respect of those properties. Properties detailed in Schedule I were said to have been endowed for a charity by name Annadhana Chatram Charity. The plaintiffs claimed possession of those properties as "Huqdars". They claimed possession of Schedule IV properties as reversioners. The trial court decreed the plaintiffs claim in part. It gave a decree in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of plaint Schedule I properties but dismissed their claim regarding Plaint-Schedule IV properties. Both the parties appealed against the judgment and decree of the trial court. The High Court allowed the appeal of the defendants and dismissed that of the plaintiff. In the result the entire suit was dismissed.2. In order to examined the various contentions advanced at the hearing, it is necessary to state in brief various events that took place prior to the institution of the suit. One Ramalingam Pillai was the owner of a substantial part of the suit properties. He had a brother by name Kuppan Pillai. Ramalingam Pillais wife pre-deceased him. He had no children. Ramalingam Pillai and Kuppan Pillai had married sisters. Ramalingam Pillai died in 1898 but Kuppan Pillai had pre-deceased him. He had died in 1894, leaving behind him his two daughters Palani Achi Ammal and Pichai Ammal. Kuppan Pillais wife had also pre-deceased Ramalingam Pillai. Ramalingam Pillai had brought up his brothers daughters Palani Achi Ammal and Pichai Ammal as his forest daughters. Before his death, Ramalingam Pillai had got married Palani Achi Ammal to V. Rm. Shanmugam Pillai, his maternal uncles son by his first wife. The said Shanmugam Pillai was associated with Ramalingam Pillai in his business. On September 29, 1898 Ramalingam Pillai executed a settlement deed (Ex. A-2) settling his properties principally on Palani Achi Ammal, Pichai Ammal and Shanmugam Pillai. Under that deed, he gave some properties to his deceased wifes sisters son, Subramania Pillai. Subramania Pillai was the son of Chitravadavammal, sister of the wives of Ramalingam Pillai and Kuppan Pillai. Under Ex. A-2 Plaint-Schedule I properties except item No. 4, were set apart for charities which Ramalingam Pillai was carrying on. Under that document Shanmugam Pillai was declared "Huqdars" of the aforementioned Annadhana charity. The Huqdarship was to be hereditary in the family of Shanmugam Pillai, Ramalingam died very soon after executing Ex. A-2. After the death of Ramalingam Pillai, Shanmugam Pillai Ammal. While managing the Annadhana Charities, Shanmugam Pillai acquired item No. 4 of Schedule I, and treated that property as that of the Charity. Shanmugam Pillai had no issues. He had executed a will on December 19, 1926. It was a registered will. That will he revoked on December 29, 1926. He died on December 31, 1926. After his death, his widows put forward another will said to have been executed by him on December 20, 1926 under which substantial bequests were made to Shanmugam Pillai known as Vendor Shanmugam Pillai, the step brother of V. Rm. Shanmugam Pillai as well as to his step sisters Irulammai and her husband Subramani Pillai.3. On September 29, 1898, the widows of V. Rm. Shanmugam Pillai and Vendor Shanmugam Pillai, his sister Irulammai and her husband Subramania Pillai entered into a registered agreement styled as "agreement of peaceful settlement". This document is marked as Ex. B-2. To that document Vendor Shanmugam Pillais sons, the present plaintiffs 1 and 2 were also parties. At that time, they were minors. They were represented by their father Vendor Shanmugam Pillai, Ex. A-2 primarily affirms the alleged will said to have been executed by V. Rm. Shanmugam Pillai on December 30, 1926. As per the agreement entered into under Ex. B-2, Vendor Shanmugam Pillai obtained possession of various items of properties left behind by V. Rm. Shanmugam Pillai. In his turn he admitted that the windows of V. Rm. Shanmugam Pillai were the absolute owners of the properties said to have been bequeathed to them under the alleged with, dated December 30, 1926. Ex. B-2 purports to be a family arrangement. In that deed Vendor Shanmugam Pillai acknowledged the right of the windows to manage the charities and pass on that right to others.4. Shortly after the execution of Ex. B-2, the senior widow Palani Achi Ammal filed a suit for partition of the properties mentioned in Ex. B-2. That suit was decreed. Thereafter on July 20, 1931, the senior window settled the properties that she got as her share under the partition decree Ex. B-3 on Kanthimathinatha Pillai, his wife Pichai Ammal and their minor daughters as per the registered settlement deed Ex. B-3. This Pichai Ammal is the daughter of Subramania Pillai son of the original settlors wifes sister Chitravadamal. The two widows Palani Achi Ammal had brought up Pichai Ammal daughter of Subramania Pillai as their foster daughter and had got her married to the aforesaid Kanthimathinatha Pillai. The settlement proceeds on the basis that Palani Achi Ammal is absolutely entitled to the properties settled. Thereafter the junior widow Pichai Ammal settled the properties that she got under the partition decree in favour of Palani Pillai, the 4th defendant in the suit, as per the registered settlement deed Ex. B-4, dated December 20, 1937. Palani Pillai is the son of Kanthimathinatha Pillai. He is referred to in the settlement deed as the second son of the forest daughter of the widow, Pichai Ammal.5. After the execution of Ex. B-2, Sankaralingam Pillai brother of Vendor Shanmugam Pillai who was not a party to Ex. B-2 filed as suit for declaration that the alleged will, dated December 30, 1926 is a forged document. The suit was decreed. The trial court held the will put forward to be a forgery. Palani Achi Ammal and Pichai Ammal were defendants in that suit. The defendant appealed against the decision of the trial court. When the matter was pending in appeal in the High Court Sankaralingam Pillai died. Thereafter the third plaintiff who was his adopted son was brought on record as the legal representative of Sankaralingam Pillai. He was represented by his guardian Meenakshi Ammal. That appeal was dismissed. The High Court came to the conclusion that on the evidence on record, it was not satisfied about the genuineness of the will. The present third plaintiff became major in 1938. Even after obtaining a decree in his favour in the will suit, the third plaintiff entered into an agreement with the two widows on October 27, 1938 (EX. B-5). Under this deed he took substantial properties and acknowledged the absolute right of the widows as regards the other properties detailed therein. It may be noted that by the time Ex. B-5 came to be executed alienations in favour of Defendants 1 to 4 had already taken place. Under Ex. B-5, the third plaintiff also acknowledge the right of those defendants who were also parties to that deed, to the properties settled on them. Further under that document the third plaintiff acknowledged the right of the two widow and Defendants 1 to 4 to manage the properties set apart for charities.

Court's reasoning:
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.