{"id":72883,"date":"2008-11-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khakchowk-thulasi-bhava-madam-vs-arul-prakasam-boopalarayar-on-3-november-2008"},"modified":"2017-06-01T20:00:59","modified_gmt":"2017-06-01T14:30:59","slug":"khakchowk-thulasi-bhava-madam-vs-arul-prakasam-boopalarayar-on-3-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khakchowk-thulasi-bhava-madam-vs-arul-prakasam-boopalarayar-on-3-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"Khakchowk @ Thulasi Bhava Madam vs Arul Prakasam Boopalarayar on 3 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Khakchowk @ Thulasi Bhava Madam vs Arul Prakasam Boopalarayar on 3 November, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDated:  03\/11\/2008\n\nCoram\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN\n\nA.S.No.445 of 1995\n&\nA.S.No.446 of 1995\nand\nM.P.No.1 of 2008 in A.S.No.446 of 1995\n\nA.S.No.445 of 1995\n\nKakshok @ Thulasi,\n1 Bhava Madam by its\nMadathipathi Trustee\nT.R.Gopal Doss   (Died)\n\nKhakchowk @ Thulasi Bhava Madam\nby its Madathipathi Trustee\nT.R.G.Mohandoss\nRam Jharokha Shanthi\nHanuman Koilm, Rameswaram,      \t\t   ... Appellant\n(2nd appellant brought on record\n as appellant as per order\n dt. 22.11.2004 made in\n  CMP.987 & 992 of 2004)\n\nvs.\n\n1.Arul Prakasam Boopalarayar,\n2.Packiam Ammal\n3.P.Sethu Servai\n4.Pushpavalli\n5.Subramaniam\n6.Lakshmi Ammal\t\t\t \t\t   ... Respondents\n\nA.S.No.446 of 1995\n\n#Kakshok @ Thulasi,\n1 Bhava Madam by its\nMadathipathi Trustee\nT.R.Gopal Doss (Died)\n\nKhakchowk @ Thulasi Bhava Madam\nby its Madathipathi Trustee\nT.R.G.Mohandoss\nRam Jharokha\nShanthi Hanuman Koil, Rameswaram,      \t\t  ... Appellant\n(2nd appellant brought on record\n as appellant as per order\n dt. 22.11.2004 made in\n  CMP.987 & 992 of 2004)\n\nvs.\n\n$1.Subramania Konar,\n2.S.V.Madhavan\n3.S.V.Murali Manoharan\n4.Indirani\n5.Munusamy\n6.Vijayalakshmi\n7.Mageswari\n8.Muthulakshmi\n9.Eswari\t\t\t\t\t ... Respondents\n\nPrayer\n\nThese appeals have been preferred under Section 96 of CPC against the\ndecree and Judgment dated 21.1.1993 in O.S.No.1 of 1991 and O.S.Nos.16 of 1987\nrespectively on the file of the Court of  Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram.\n\n!For Appellant  ...   Mr.S.Kadarkarai, Advocate\n^For respondent ...   Mr.T.M.Hariharan, Advocate\n\n-----\n<\/pre>\n
:COMMON JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
\tA.S.No.445 of 1995 has been directed against the decree and Judgment in
\nO.S.No.1 of 1991 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram.
\nA.S.No.446 of 1995 has been directed against the decree and Judgment in
\nO.S.No.16 of 1987 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.M.P.No.1 of 2008 in A.S.No.446 of 1995 was filed under Order 41 Rule 27
\nof CPC to receive the additional documents mentioned below:-\n<\/p>\n
\t1)Certified copy of the settlement deed dated 06.06.2007 executed by one
\nNagavalli in favour of the appellant \/ plainifff.\n<\/p>\n
\t2)Certified copy of the settlement deed dated 30.05.2007 executed by the
\nrespondents 2 and 3 in favour of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
\t3)Certified copy of the settlement deed dated 30.05.2007 executed by the
\nrespondents 2 and 3 in favour of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
\t4)Certified copy of the settlement deed dated 28.11.2006 executed by the
\nrespondents 2 and 3 in favour of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
\t5)Certified Xerox copy of the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.149 of 1991
\ndated 30.04.1996.\n<\/p>\n
         6)Certified copy of the Trust Deed dated 12.03.1959.\n<\/p>\n
Out of the above said six documents four documents are subsequent to the filing
\nof the suit. So even if they are allowed to be received as additional documents
\nno useful purpose will be served because they are all in no way going to help to
\ncome to a conclusion whether the vendor under Exs.A.19, 20 & 22 viz.,
\nKalikrishana Doss, had any right to execute those documents in respect of the
\nproperty scheduled to the plaint in favour of D1 to D4.  With regard to the
\nother two documents  viz.,  Trust  Deed  dated 12.03.1959 and the Judgment in
\nO.S.No.149 of<\/p>\n
1991 dated 30.04.1996 can be dealt with while proceeding with this judgment.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.The averments in the plaint in O.S.No.16 of 1987 (A.S.No.446 of 1995)
\nare as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\tThe plaint schedule properties are trust properties belonging to Sadhus
\nTrust known as “Sri Sempiradhaya Sathus”.  These trusts  are managed by Guru
\nSizhya Parambara (From Guru to Sishya and so on).  According to such practice of
\nsuccession Ramakrishna dass father of the plaintiff became the Trustee and come
\nto the Management of the trust and its properties.   He was incharge of a Trust
\nat Dhanushkodi and also 2 trusts at Rameswaram inclusive of the suit trust.
\nThe present suit is in connection with what is known as “Thulasi Bava Mutt”
\notherwise known as “Khakchowk” and also Sri Penchamuga Hanuman situate at Seetha
\nTheertham in Rameswaram.   In the year 1959 Ramakrishna Dass was in full charge
\nof the trust at Dhanushkodi and put in possession as trustee his younger son
\nKali Krishna Dass @ Kalyana Dass in charge of the said trust.  At the same time
\nhe put the plaintiff in charge of the Hanuman Temple and Mutt in Parvatham
\nVillage on the principal of Guru Sishya Parambara.  The properties are all trust
\nproperties and it is to be managed by the Trustee who is known as Mahanth or
\nMadathipathi.  The Trustee have no power of alienation and the property should
\nbe with the Sishya of the Guru and after him it goes to his Sishya if he is
\nhaving one or it will go to the other Sishya of the same Guru.    Kali Krishna
\nDass  @ Kalyana Dass was not married.  He died on 11.3.1986 at Rameswaram
\nhospital.   The plaintiff is the other Sishya of the same line of Guru and as
\nsuch the plaintiff became entitled to the management of the trust and its
\nproperties.  He is also entitled to the management of the trust as per Hindu
\nLaw.  The plaintiff is at present in actual possession of the Thulasi Bava
\nMutt.Seetha Theertham and Sri Panchamuga Hanuman Temple etc., are all belong to
\nthe trust.   The plaintiff was prevented from taking possession of the schedule
\nmentioned properties belonging to the trust. The plaintiff’s brother who was the
\nprevious trustee viz., Kali Krishna Dass @ Kalyana Dass had created three
\ndocuments dated 8th October, 1985,  19th February,1986 and 25th February 1985
\nrespectively.  The first document (Sale deed dated 8.10.1985) is in respect of
\nplaint schedule Item No.1 in favour of the first defendant,  the second document
\n(sale deed dated 19.2.1986) is in respect of plaint schedule Item No.2 in favour
\nof D2 & D3 and the third document (sale deed dated 25.2.1985) is in respect of
\nplaint schedule Item No.3 in favour of the third defendant.   Previous trustee
\ndied on 11.3.1986 and the present plaintiff has succeeded his Office of
\ntrusteeship.  Hence, the suit for recovery of possession of the suit properties
\nand for mesne profits both future and past.\n<\/p>\n
\t3(a).The first defendant in his written statement would contend that Kali
\nKrishna Dass @ Kalyanadass was the adopted son of Jeyaramadass.  Till his death
\nhe was leading as a guide and eking his livlihood.   The properties sold by Kali
\nKrishna Dass @ Kalyana Dass are all his properites and only with a bad motive to
\ngrab at the properties from the vendees of the said Kali Krishna Dass the
\nplaintiff has filed this vexatious suit.  The plaint schedule properties do not
\nbelong to any trust and not dedicated by any one to the plaint-trust.  There is
\nno trust as alleged in the plaint and the plaintiff is not the trustee of the
\nplaint-trust.  Kali Krishna Dass died in March-1986.  The properties sold by
\nKali Krishna Dass to the defendants found in possession and enjoyment of Kali
\nKrishna Dass for more than 40 to 50 years.  The plaintiff has no right or title
\nin respect of the plaint schedule properties. From the date of sale deed ie.
\nFrom 8.10.1995 this defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the properties
\nsold under the said sale deed.  Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t3(b).The defendants 2 & 3 have filed a joint written statement contending
\nthat Kali Krishna Dass @ Kalyana Dass was a guide and from out of the earnings
\nfrom the said avocation, he had purchased the properties sold to these
\ndefendants. The plaint schedule properties do not belong to the plaint-trust.
\nNeither the plaintiff nor his father Ramakrishnadass was appointed as a trustee
\nof the plaint trust.  The properties scheduled to the plaint were never
\ndedicated to the plaint trust by any one.  The averment in the plaint as to the
\neffect that the plaintiff came as a trustee on the basis of Guru-Sishya
\nrelationship has no bearing at all.  These defendants are in possession and
\nenjoyment of the properties purchaed by them under the sale deed from Kali
\nKrishna Dass @ Kalyana Dass for more than 30 to 40 years.  Before executing the
\nsale deeds in favour of these defendants, these defendants’ vendor Kali Krishna
\nDass was in possession and enjoyment of the same for over 50 to 60 years.  The
\nplaintiff made an attempt to trespass into the properties in possession of these
\ndefendants.  There is no trust in the plaint schedule properties and there is no
\nincome derived from out of the suit properties purchased by these defendants
\nfrom Kali Krishna Dass. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t3(c).The fourth defendant died pending suit. The fifth defendant remained
\nexparte.\n<\/p>\n
\t3(d).On behalf of the minors D6 to D10 Court guardian has filed the
\nfollowing written statement:-  The minor defendants are not necessary parties to
\nthe suit.  The suit is not maintainable as against the minor defendants.\n<\/p>\n
\t3(e).On the above pleadings the learned trial Judge has framed eight
\nissues and one additional issue for trial.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.The averments in the plaint in O.S.No.1 of 1991 (A.S.No.445 of 1995)
\nruns as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\tThe plaint schedule properties belong to the plaint trust. On the basis of
\nGuru Sishya relationship the trust is being administered. So as per the said
\narrangement the plaintiff’s father Ramakrishnadass was administering the plaint
\ntrust at Rameswaram and another trust at Dhanushkodi. The plaint trust is also
\nknown as Thulasi Bava Mutt or “Khachowk”.  The trustee Ramakrishnadass, father
\nof the plaintiff, stayed at Rameswaram and also administered the trust by name
\nAnuman Koil Trust, in the place called Thaniparuvatham.   Bachya Anuman temple
\nand Seetha Theertham also belong to Thulasi Bava mutt. During 1959
\nRamakrishnadass came into possession of the said trust and administered the
\nsame, and his son Kali Krishna Dass @ Kalyana Dass was entrusted with the
\ntrusteeship of Thulasi Bava Trust.  Subsequently Ramakrishnadass had given in
\nadoption his son Kali Krishna Dass to one Jeyaram Dass.  After the said adoption
\nKali Krishna Dass was known as Kalyana Dass.  The other son of Ramakrishna Dass
\nis Mr.T.R.Gopal Dass, the plaintiff herein.  T.R.Gopal Dass was the trustee of
\nAnuman Temple at Thaniparuvatham, Rameswaram.  Both the trust were administered
\nby the trustees known as  “Maganth”.  After the death of this trustee his Sishya
\nwill become the trustee.  After the death of Kali Krishna Dass on 11.3.1986, his
\nbrother T.R.Gopal Dass, the plaintiff herein, became the trustee as the disciple
\nof his Guru since Kali Krishna Dass.  Kali Krishna Dass died without any hires.
\nTo get the possession of some of the properties of the trust, Gopal Dass has
\nfiled O.S.No.16 of 1987 before the District Court, Ramanathapuram. The said suit
\nis pending.   Kalyana Dass had no right or title in respect of the suit
\nproperties to execute the sale deeds.  D1, D2, D3, D4, D5 & D6 have purchased
\nthe trust properties from Kalyana Dass under sale deeds dated 13.6.1979 (in
\nfavour of D1),  dated 17.12.1980 (in favour of D2) and dated 7.8.1982 in favour
\nof D3 & D4, dated 2.8.1984 in favour of D5 & D6.  The plaintiff requested the
\ndefendants to handover possession of the plaint schedule properties \/ trust
\nproperties.  The defendants even though agreed to handover possession at first,
\nsubsequently at the instance of the defendant in O.S.No.16 of 1987 refused to
\nhandover possession of the plaint schedule properties. Hence, the suit for
\nrecovery of possession and for mesne profits both past and future.
\n\t4(a)The first defendant remained exparte.  The second defendant in his
\nwritten statement would contend that the plaintiff is not the trustee of the
\nplaint trust.  There is no trust as alleged in the plaint in existence.  The
\nplaintiff has no legal status to file the suit in the capacity of a trustee of
\nthe plaint trust.  There is not dedication made to the plaint trust in respect
\nof the plaint schedule properties by any  one. The plaintiff is not in
\nadministration of the plaint schedule properties as a Sishya of his Guru.  The
\nplaintiff was never in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule
\nproperties and he never administered Thulasi Bava Mutt trust at Rameswaram or
\nAnuman Koil Trust at Dhanushkodi.  Thulasi Bava Mutt was known as “Khakchowk”
\nTrust.  Kali Krishna Dass was given in adoption to Jeyaramdass by his father
\nRamakrishnadass.  Jeyaram Dass is not the brother of Ramakrishnadass.  Gopal
\nDass is not the other son of Ramakrishnadass.  After the death of Kalyana Dass,
\nT.R.Gopal Dass, the plaintiff, never became the trustee of the plaint trust and
\nnever administered the plaint schedule properties in the capacity of a trustee
\nof the plaint trust. This defendant is not aware of the pendancy of O.S.No.16 of
\n1987.   This defendant never agreed to handover the possession of the plaint
\nschedule properties to the plaintiff at any point of time. The averment that at
\nthe instance of the defendants in O.S.No.16 of 1987 this defendant had
\nsubsequently refused to handover possession of the suit properties is denied as
\nfalse.  Kalyana Dass has become entitled to the suit properties as per the
\ndecree and judgment in O.S.No.73 of 1980. He was given patta No.180 in
\nRameswaram Village in respect of the plaint schedule properties.  As per the
\nsale deed dated 22.11.1983, this defendant had purchased three cents of land in
\nthe plaint schedule survey number property, which has been sub-divided as
\nS.No.769\/1C\/1B.  After the purchase, this defendant had constructed a tiled
\nhouse in it.  The defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint
\nschedule properties from the year 1980 onwards.  The suit is barred for
\nlimitation.  Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t4(b)The third defendant had reiterated most of the defence raised in the
\nwritten statement of the second defendant.  Further, he would contend that there
\nwas no trust as alleged in the plaint and the plaintiff is not the trustee of
\nthe plaint trust and that there was no Guru Sishya relationship maintained for
\nelecting the trustee of the trust as alleged in the plaint.  The plaint trust
\nwas not known as  Khakchowk trust & Thulasi Bava Mutt. The adoption of Kali
\nKrishna Dass by Jeyaram Dass is admitted.   T.R.Gopal Dass is not the other son
\nof Ramakrishnadas.  He was not given in adoption to Parameswaradass.   The
\nplaintiff was never in administration of the plaint trust.   Kalyana Dass died
\non 11.3.1986.  The plaintiff was never in administration of Thulasi Bava Mutt
\ntrust or Panchamuga Anuman Temple at Rameswaram. This defendant along with D4
\nhad purchased ‘D’ schedule property on 7.8.1982 from Kalyana Dass for sale
\nconsideration of Rs.35,000\/- and had constructed a house.  These defendants have
\nalso purchased plaint schedule item No.2 & 3. From 1982 onwards this defendant
\nis in possession of the property purchased under the said sale deed date
\n7.8.1982.  This defendant never agreed to handover possession to the plaintiff
\nat any point of time. This defendant is a bonefide transferee of valuable
\nconsideration.  The suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties and also for mis-
\njoinder of cause of action.  The suit is barred by limitation.\n<\/p>\n
\t4(c)The fifth defendant in his written statement would contend that the
\nplaintiff has no legal status to file the suit and there was no trust.  The
\nplaintiff is not the trustee.  In other respects this defendant would
\npractically adopted the written statement of D3.  According to D5, he had
\npurchased ‘E’ schedule property under the sale deed dated 2.8.1984 for
\nRs.4,000\/- from Kalyana Dass and thereafter he had constructed a thatched house
\nbearing Door No.7\/15B.  From 1982 onwards this defendant along with his family
\nis residing in the said house.  The plaintiff has no cause of action to file the
\nsuit.  The plaint ‘A’ schedule property originally belong to Kalyana Dass as per
\nthe decree in O.S.No.73 of 1960.  A separate patta No.180 in Rameswaram was
\nassigned in the name of Kalyana Dass.   This defendant is a bonefide transferee
\nfor valuable consideration.  The suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties and also
\nfor mis-joinder of cause of action.   This defendant prescribed title by way of
\nadverse possession to the suit property.  Hence, the suit is liable to be
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t4(d) On the above pleadings the learned trial Judge had framed 12 issued
\nfor trial.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.A joint trial was conducted by the learned trial Judge.  On the side of
\nthe plaintiff, the alleged trusteee of the plaint trust viz. T.R.Gopal Dass has
\nexamined himself as P.W.1 and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.25 were marked.  The father of D2 &
\nD3 in O.S.No.16 of 1987 was examined as D.W.1 and Ex.B.1-sale deed dated
\n12.5.1985 was marked on the side of the defendants.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.The learned trial Judge after meticulously going through the evidence
\nboth oral and documentary has held that the relief asked for under the plaint in
\nboth the suits cannot be granted, and dismissed both the suits, which
\nnecessitated the plaintiff in both the suits to prefer these appeals.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.The points for determination in these appeals are as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t1)Whether the plaintiff in both the suits \/ appellant is a trustee
\nof the plaint trust?\n<\/p>\n
\t\t2)Whether the suit are barred by limitation?\n<\/p>\n
\t\t3)Whether the decree and Judgment in O.S.No.16\/87 and O.S.No.1\/1991
\non the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram, is liable to be
\nset aside for the reasons stated in the respective memorandums of appeals?\n<\/p>\n
\t8.Point No.1:- According to P.W.1, plaintiff, the vendor under Exs.A.19,
\n20 & 22 in favour of D1, D2& D3 and D4 in O.S.No.1 of 1991 executed by Kali
\nKrishna Dass are non-est since the vendor Kali Krishna Dass has no right or
\ntitle in respect of the plaint schedule properties in both the suits and as a
\ntrustee of the plaint trust, he has no right or title to execute those sale
\ndeeds in favour of the above said defendants in respect of the properties belong
\nto the plaint trust.  Ex.A.25 is the only revenue record produced on the side of
\nthe plaintiff to show that S.No.767\/2 belongs to Thulasi Bava Dhama Chathiram.
\nNowhere under Ex.A.25 it it stated that S.No.767\/1, 767\/2, 767\/3 belong to the
\nplaint trust.  It is seen from Ex.A.25 that the said properties were never
\npossessed either by the trust or by the trustees of the trust. Column 7 to
\nEx.A.25 says that as per 10(1)  Account Kali Krishna Dass has been incorporated
\nas the holder of patta. Even though patta is not a document of title, it is the
\nbounden duty of the plaintiff to show as correctly held by the learned trial
\nJudge, that there was a registered trust by name Khakchowk @ Thulasi Bava Mutt
\nand its trusteee is T.R.Gopal Dass.  Unless the plaintiff proves that T.R.Gopal
\nDass is the trustee of the Thulasi Bava Mutt @ Khakchowk trust, the relief of
\nrecovery of possession of the plaint schedule properties in both the suits on
\nthe ground that vendor viz., Kali Krishna Das @ Kalyana Dass had no right to
\nexecute Exs.A.19, 20 & 22, sale deed in favour of D1, D2 & D3 and D4
\nrespectively cannot be sustainable.  A reading of Ex.A.19-sale deed will go to
\nshow that the vendor Kali Krishna Add had derived title under the decree in
\nO.S.No.73 of 1960.  Ex.A.3 is the Judgment in O.S.No.73 of 1960, which was filed
\nby the said Kali Krishna Dass, the vedor under Exs.A.19, 20 & 22.  The said suit
\nwas decreed in favour of the plaintiff viz. T.R.Kali Krishna Das under Exs,A.19,
\n20 & 22.  Ex.A.4 is the decree in Ex.A.3-Suit.  The schedule of properties to
\nEx.A.4-decree is the properties belonging to Khakchowk trust @ Thulasi Bava
\nMutt. So on the basis of the decree in O.S.No.73 of 1960, Kali Krishna Dass had
\nexecuted Exs.A.19, 20 & 22. But the question is whether the vendees under
\nExs.A.19, 20 & 22 got any valid title in respect of the properties purchased
\nunder those documents or not. But next question herein is whether the plaintiff
\nhas any locus standi to file the suits in the capacity of a trustee of Khakchowk
\n@ Thulasi Bava Mutt.  Since there is no material placed before the trail Court
\nto show that Khakchowk  @ Thulasi Bava Mutt is a trust and that the plaintiff
\nT.R.Gopal Dass is a trustee of the plaint trust, the learned trial Judge has
\ncome to a definite conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief
\nasked for under the plaint in both the suits.  Hence, I hold on point No.1 that
\nthere is not material to hold that the plaintiff Khakchowk @ Thulasi Bava Mutt
\nis a trust and that Mr.T.R.Gopal Dass, plaintiff, is the trustee of the said
\ntrust.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.Point No.2 :- Ex.A.19 is dated 13.06.1979.   Ex.A.20 is dated 17.12.1980
\nand Ex.A.22 is daed 2.8.1984. Even though the defendants have raised a defence
\nin their respective written statements that the suit is barred by limitation,
\nthey have not specifically pleaded that they have prescribed title to the suit
\nproperties by way of adverse possession.  There is no pleading in the written
\nstatement as to the effect that the plaintiff is the owner of the properties
\nsold under Exs.A.19, 20 & 22 and that the defendants have prescribed title by
\nway of adverse possession.  In the absence of any evidence to show that the
\ndefendants have prescribed title by way of adverse possession to the properties
\nscheduled to the plaint in both the suits, it cannot be said that both the suits
\nare barred by limitation.  Point No.2 is answered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.Point No.3:-In view of my findings and discussions in the earlier
\nparagraphs, I hold on Point No.3 that the judgment and decree of the learned
\ntrial Judge in O.S.No.1 of 1991 and O.S.No.16 of 1987 on the file of the Court
\nof Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram, need not be set aside for the reasons
\nstated in the respective memorandums of appeals.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.The fact that some of the defendants have specifically executed a
\nsettlement deed in respect of the properties purchased under the above said sale
\ndeeds in the year 2007 in favour of the plaintiff will not derive us to a
\nconclusion that the plaintiff is a trust  and T.R.Gopal Dass is a trustee of the
\nsaid trust.   The judgment in O.S.No.149 of 1991 is not for the relif of a
\ndeclaration that the plaintiff trust is a trust and that T.R.Gopal Dass is its
\ntrustee.  The said suit was filed only to redeem a previous mortgage in respect
\nof the properties scheduled to the plaint in O.S.No.149 of 1991.  There is no
\nmaterial placed before this Court to show that the properties scheduled to
\nO.S.No.149 of 1991 is the properties scheduled to this plaint also.  If the
\nproperties scheduled in O.S.No.149 of 1991 is a property under Exs.A.19, 20 &
\n22, then certainly the vendees under Exs.A.19, 20 &22 would have been arrayed as
\ndefendants in O.S.No.149 of 1991.  The defendants in O.S.No.149 of 1991 are not
\nparties to either of these suits herein. The other document dated 1.3.1959 is a
\ntrust deed executed by Sri Rangathri in favour of one Shanthidass.  The said
\ndocument was produced as an additional document to show that on the basis of
\nGuru Sishya relationship the trustees were appointed for the plaint trust.  But
\nas I have already observed there is no document produced to show that the plaint
\ntrust is a registered trust and that T.R.Gopal Das is its trustee.  Hence,
\nM.P.No.1 of 2008 in A.S.No.446 of 1995 filed under Order 49 Rule 27 of CPC is
\nalso liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t12.In fine, the appeals are dismissed confirming the decree and Judgment
\nin O.S.No.1 of 1991 and O.S.Nos.16 of 1987 respectively on the file of the Court
\nof  Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram. No costs.  Connected M.P.No.1 of 2008 is
\nalso dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
ssv<\/p>\n
To,
\nThe Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Khakchowk @ Thulasi Bhava Madam vs Arul Prakasam Boopalarayar on 3 November, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 03\/11\/2008 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN A.S.No.445 of 1995 & A.S.No.446 of 1995 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 in A.S.No.446 of 1995 A.S.No.445 of 1995 Kakshok @ Thulasi, 1 Bhava […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-72883","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKhakchowk @ Thulasi Bhava Madam vs Arul Prakasam Boopalarayar on 3 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khakchowk-thulasi-bhava-madam-vs-arul-prakasam-boopalarayar-on-3-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Khakchowk @ Thulasi Bhava Madam vs Arul Prakasam Boopalarayar on 3 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khakchowk-thulasi-bhava-madam-vs-arul-prakasam-boopalarayar-on-3-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-11-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-01T14:30:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khakchowk-thulasi-bhava-madam-vs-arul-prakasam-boopalarayar-on-3-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khakchowk-thulasi-bhava-madam-vs-arul-prakasam-boopalarayar-on-3-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Khakchowk @ Thulasi Bhava Madam vs Arul Prakasam Boopalarayar on 3 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-01T14:30:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khakchowk-thulasi-bhava-madam-vs-arul-prakasam-boopalarayar-on-3-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3750,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khakchowk-thulasi-bhava-madam-vs-arul-prakasam-boopalarayar-on-3-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khakchowk-thulasi-bhava-madam-vs-arul-prakasam-boopalarayar-on-3-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khakchowk-thulasi-bhava-madam-vs-arul-prakasam-boopalarayar-on-3-november-2008\",\"name\":\"Khakchowk @ Thulasi Bhava Madam vs Arul Prakasam Boopalarayar on 3 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-01T14:30:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khakchowk-thulasi-bhava-madam-vs-arul-prakasam-boopalarayar-on-3-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khakchowk-thulasi-bhava-madam-vs-arul-prakasam-boopalarayar-on-3-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khakchowk-thulasi-bhava-madam-vs-arul-prakasam-boopalarayar-on-3-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Khakchowk @ Thulasi Bhava Madam vs Arul Prakasam Boopalarayar on 3 November, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Khakchowk @ Thulasi Bhava Madam vs Arul Prakasam Boopalarayar on 3 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khakchowk-thulasi-bhava-madam-vs-arul-prakasam-boopalarayar-on-3-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Khakchowk @ Thulasi Bhava Madam vs Arul Prakasam Boopalarayar on 3 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khakchowk-thulasi-bhava-madam-vs-arul-prakasam-boopalarayar-on-3-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-01T14:30:59+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khakchowk-thulasi-bhava-madam-vs-arul-prakasam-boopalarayar-on-3-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khakchowk-thulasi-bhava-madam-vs-arul-prakasam-boopalarayar-on-3-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Khakchowk @ Thulasi Bhava Madam vs Arul Prakasam Boopalarayar on 3 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-01T14:30:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khakchowk-thulasi-bhava-madam-vs-arul-prakasam-boopalarayar-on-3-november-2008"},"wordCount":3750,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khakchowk-thulasi-bhava-madam-vs-arul-prakasam-boopalarayar-on-3-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khakchowk-thulasi-bhava-madam-vs-arul-prakasam-boopalarayar-on-3-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khakchowk-thulasi-bhava-madam-vs-arul-prakasam-boopalarayar-on-3-november-2008","name":"Khakchowk @ Thulasi Bhava Madam vs Arul Prakasam Boopalarayar on 3 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-01T14:30:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khakchowk-thulasi-bhava-madam-vs-arul-prakasam-boopalarayar-on-3-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khakchowk-thulasi-bhava-madam-vs-arul-prakasam-boopalarayar-on-3-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khakchowk-thulasi-bhava-madam-vs-arul-prakasam-boopalarayar-on-3-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Khakchowk @ Thulasi Bhava Madam vs Arul Prakasam Boopalarayar on 3 November, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72883","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=72883"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72883\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=72883"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=72883"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=72883"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}