KT. N. RM. THENAPPA CHETTIAR & ORS. versus N. S. KR. KARUPPAN CHETTIAR & ORS.

Citation: [1968] 2 S.C.R. 897 · Decided: 31-01-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
KT. N. RM. THENAPPA CHETTIAR & ORS. 
v. 
N. S. KR. KARUPPAN CHETTIAR & ORS • 
. January 31, 1968 
(J. C. SHAH AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.] 
Trust-founded for certain religious purposes with contributions from 
a nun1her of persons-whether all of them 'follnders' of th~ ·1r11It-Ril!ht 
of any one interested in proper 111a11age1ne11r of trust ·10 file a suit for re-
1noval of managing trustee or for frcmlng a sche1ne of 1nanag~ment. 
The appellants filed a suit praying for the settlement of a scheme in 
respect of a trust and f\Jr an account of the n1anagement of the trust by 
C and for certain incidental reliefs. 
Their case \Vas that the trust was a 
joint foundation made on November 12. 1919 by the ancestors of various 
parties to the suit and the first ··espondent's late father C; 
that 
it was 
founded for conducting certain special and ordinary Pujas 10 the Mutt 
and for the feeding of the pupils. It was alleged that at the time of the 
foundation C contributed Rs. 25,000 and four others contributed Rs. 6,250 
each and the joint founders had ~t the time of foundation appointed C, 
\vho was the 1argest conlributor. as the Manager and executive trustee. 
On November 27, 1943 C had nominated the. second respondent. his 
grandson, as the executive trustee. 
Various ~lleiations of mismanagement 
of the trust were made against the second respondent claiming t~at he 
had stopped the Pujas and various other activities for which the 1rust wa~ 
created. The Trial Cotirt disrn-issed the suit on the findin~ that C was 
the sole founder of the. trust who had conducted it with the monev contri-
buted by himself and other persons and that at the time of the foundation 
the other four contributors did not reserve for themselves. any right in the 
trusteeship of the Mutt. lt also held that the charges of mismanagement 
were ...:nfounded and no case was made out for fr:iming: a sc~me. An 
appeal to the High Court was dismissed. 
On appeal to this Court. 
HELD : (i) The High Court was right in finding the appellants had 
failed to establish that they were joint founders of the trus• and that thev 
\Vere entitled in turns to management in proportion to their contribution. 
It is not a correct proposition of law to state tha' every donor contri-
...: 
buting at the time of foundation of a trust becom-:s a founder of the trust. 
lt may be that in a particular case all the contributors of a trust fund be~ 
come the founders of the trust itself, but the question when a contributor 
would become in law a joint founder of the trust would depend not inere1y 
upon the fact of his contribution but also upon the s.urrounding circum-
• 
G 
~tances proved in the parliC'Ular case and the subsequent conduct of the 
parties. [901 HJ 
H 
fo the Matter of the Endowed Schools Act, 1869-and Tn the Malter 
of the St. Leonard, Shoreditch, Parochial Schools. 
10 
A.C. 
304 and 
Settikara Venkataran1a ChetJiar v. 0. P. Damodarc1n Chettiar, 51 M.L.J. 
457: refc.rred to. 
Even in the case of a private trust a suit can be filed for the removal 
of the trustee or for settlement of a scheme. for the purpose .of cffc.ctively 
ca"rrying out the objects of the trust. If there is a breach of trust or mis-
management on the part of the trustee. a suit can be brought in a civil 
court by any person interested for the removal of the trustee and for the 
898 
SUPREME COURT llEPOllTS 
[1968] 2 S.C.R. 
proper administration of lhe endowment. 
In the present case the appel-
lants being contributors to 1he trust were interested in the proper adminis-
tration of •he trust and had a sufficient right to bring a suit in ca<;e there 
w~ mismanagement or breach of trust on. the.part of the managing trus:U 
and for framing of a scheme. However, m view of the concurrent lindma 
of both the lower Courls 1hat the llllegaliollll of breach of tru.'1 or ~ 
management had not been established, no grou.id had been made out on 
behalf of lhe appellants for framing of a scheme or for the removal of 
the second respondent. [904 A.CJ 
Pramotha Nath Mu//ick's case. 52 I.A. 245; Manahar Maalerj" "· 
Peary Mohan, 24 C.W.N. 478; and Bimal Krizhna'r case, 41 C.W.N. 728; 
ttferred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 355 of 
1965. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
April 4, 1961 of the Madras High Court in Appeal No. 99 of 
1957. 
N. C. Chatterjee, R. Thiagarajan for R. Ganapathy Iyer, for 
lhe appellants. 
K. Gopa/achari and R. Gopa/akrishnan,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.