NAGU REDDIAR AND ORS. ETC. versus BABU REDDIAR AND ORS. ETC. AND VICE VERSA

Citation: [1978] 3 S.C.R. 770 · Decided: 27-04-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
770 
NAGU REDDIAR AND ORS. ETC. 
v. 
BABU REDDIAR AND ORS. ETC. 
AND VICE VERSA 
April 27, 1978 
[R. S. SARKAR!A AND P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.] 
Settlen1ent of trust on tombs under the Hindu Law whether valid in law-
Meaning of "Poruthataravu"-Onus is on the person who claims regular wor-
ship of the samadhi a religious practice in· the community, to prove. 
By a deed Ex. A I dated 10th September 1885, five members of the family 
of one Nagi Reddi dedicated certain properties belonging to their family des-
cribed in Schedule A and B to the plaint to two charities one called Anna-
dhana--Chatram and the other called Sachindananda Matam situated in. 
the village Vairichettipalayam" 
After the death of Ramalingachi Reddiar hi& 
adopted son Nagu Reddiar appellant in C.A. 2456/68 assumed management of 
the trust properties, in accordance with the succession indicated in Ex. A2, in 
1942. A suit O.S. 152/55 under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code was 
filed by the plaintiffs respondents herein in the Court of Sub-Judge Trichirapalli, 
for removing the appellant No. 1 from the trusteeship of the suit charities and 
for framing a scheme for the said charities. 
The Trial Court found that the 
two charities in question were public Trusts and comprised all the alienated 
properties except item 7 of the Plaint 'A' Schedule of the trust properties; that 
'B' Schedule properties were bequethed for performance of Puja in Samadhi 
and for feeding the 'agathis' and 'paradesis' in the Matam and that the samadhi 
could not be separated from the Matam and therefore the dedication of the 'B' 
Schedule properties in forum of the matam and samadhikoil is invalid in 'law. 
The Court ordered the removal of the defendant from the office of the trustee-
ship and directed him to render accounts and ordered the framing of a scheme 
for plaint 'A' Schedule properties except item 7 which was found to be not a 
trust property. 
Aggrieved by the said decision both the plaintiff respondent and 
defendant 
appel1ant preferred appeals to the High Court. A.S. 114/68 is an appeal pre-
ferred by the first defendant appellant against the decree removing him from 
trusteeship, directing the framing of a scheme and declaring alienations made 
by him to be not binding on the Trust. A.S. 194/58 is an appeal preferred by 
the plaintiff against that part of the decree of the judgment dismissing the suit 
in respect to Sachidananda Matam and 'B' Schedule properties and declaring 
iten1 7 of the plaint 'A' Schedule as property not belonging to the Chatnam 
Trust. 
Both the appeals were disposed of by the High Court by a 
common 
judgment dismissing A.S. 114/58 of the defendant appellant subject 
to 
the 
modification of the decree of the lower Court that he would be liable to render 
accounts in respect of the trust properties only for five years prior to the date 
of the suit and allowing in part A.S. 194/58 of the plaintiff respondent holding 
that item 7 of the plaint 'A' Schedule properties was also part of the Trust pro-
perties. 
It also found that alienations 7, 8 and 15 of 'B' Schedule properties 
were not valid or binding on the Trust. Differing from the Trial 
Court it 
held that the Matam and the Samadhikoil were not inextricably mixed up and 
that the endowment for Sachidananda ~fatam was a valid endowment. The 
High Court allocated half the properties mentioned in 'B' Schedule to the· 
Sachidananda Matam and feeding charity and directed the other half of the 'B' 
Schedule properties should go to the defendant No. 1 because it related to the 
Puja in the Samadhi, the endowment for which purpose not being valid. 
Allowing the appeals by certificate, in part the Court 
HELD : 1. The samadhi was a tomb of ancestors of the settlors of the 
Trust and as such the settlement in favour of the tomb is not valid in law. 
[776DJ 
', -... ( 
-· 
NAGU REDDIAR v. BABU REDDIAR 
771 
2. The \\'Ord "Poruthatharavu" in the words "Dharumathirkaga Ezhuthi-
vaitha Poruthatharavu'' does not mean a 'charge'. The words mean a docu· 
ment evidencing the transaction 'Atharavu' means 'support' and 'Poruthatharavu' 
means a document in support. The document also explicitly states that the 
properties are given absolutely for the charities. 
A reading of the documents 
makes it clear that the properties \Vere absolutely endowed in· favour of the 
charities and the settlers specifically relinqt1ished all their rights in the endowed 
properties. [776 F, G. HJ
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.