S. RATHINAM@ KUPPAMUTHU AND ORS. versus L.S. MARIAPPAN AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 7 S.C.R. 568 · Decided: 18-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

.rr 
A 
S. RATHINAM@ KUPPAMUTHU AND ORS. 
-- " 
v. 
L.S. MARIAPPAN AND·ORs. 
MAY 18,2007 
B 
r-
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
)l 
I 
l 
. .,, 
y' 
Wills: 
c 
Private family temple-Right to manage and/or shebaitship-
Testamentary succession-Subject-matter of-A private family temple known. 
as 'Pechiamman Temple' was founded by one PC who had two sons, 'LP' and 
r-
'S'-One 'T', son of 'S', filed a suit which was decreed and the said decree 
had attained finality, pursuant whereto the branch of 'S' became entitled to 
_,, 
a right of term of management for a period of two years-Subsequently, 'f:P' 
D and his two sons, however, entered into a partition deed for division of their 
properties including the terms of management of the suit temple and its 
,.<. 
properties-It was agreed that 'LP' himself would hold the posts of 'pujari' 
-t 
as well as trustee for two years, whereas his two sons would hold the same 
for a period of eight months each-'LP' executed a will bequeathing his 
E 
share in favour of his son 'C'-After the death of 'LP', 'C' had been acting 
as a 'Pujari' as also a trustee for a period of sixteen months and 'S' and his 
sons had been managing the said properties for a period of eight months-
'C' died, leaving behind defendant No. I as his heir and legal representative-
'S' also had executed a will in favour of his sons-For framing a scheme in 
respect of the said properties, a suit was filed by the plaintiffe against 'T' and 
. ' 
others, which was dismissed -An appeal was preferred there against-
' 
F However, after the death of 'C ', the sons of 'S 'filed a suit, inter a/ia, praying 
·~ 
for a declaration that defendant No. I was not the legal heir of 'C'-Validity 
of the will executed by 'LP' was also put in question-1he trial court, while 
holding defendant No. I to be the son of 'C', also upheld the validity of the 
will executed by 'LP '-An appeal was filed against the said decision of the 
G trial court-Both the appeals were heard together by a Single Judge of the 
High Court who, while holding the will to be not valid in law, directed a 
scheme to be framed in respect of the management of the said properties-
.. 
A. Letters Patent Appeal was filed by defendant No. I aggrieved by the 
Y" 
direction to frame a. scheme-He also preferred a _Letters Patent Appeal 
H 
568 
.f 
S. RATHINAM@KUPPAMUTHU v.L.S. MARIAPPAN 
569 
~ 
against that part of the finding of the Single Judge that the will executed by A 
-
'LP' was not valid in law-Defendant No. 4 also preferred a Letters Patent 
Appeal questioning the framing of the scheme-Plaintiffe also preferred a 
cross-objection as against the finding that defendant No. 1 was the son of 
'C'-The appeals and the cross-objection were heard together-It was 
accepted before the Division Bench that the scheme framed pursuant to the B 
decision of the Single Judge was working satisfactorily and no interference 
t 
therein was called for-The finding of the Single Judge that respondent No. 
~ 
1 was the son of 'C' was also riorseriously disputed-Jn regard to the 
~ 
validity of the will, however, the Division Bench held the same to be valid-
.... 
Consequently, it was held that respondent No. 1 was entitled to he in the 
management of the suit temple and its properties for a total period of sixteen c 
months within 24 months allotted to the branch of 'LP '-Correctness of-
Held: The trust in question is a private trust-As a private trust, the terms 
and conditions of the management of the temple, would, therefore, be subject 
to the desire of the founder of the trust-No document in writing was produced 
in this behalf-A will denotes a testamentary document-It mean a legal D 
declaration of the intention of a testator with respect to his property-It is 
~' 
not a transfer but a mode of devolution-A will not being a transfer, the bar 
t 
contained in Section 6(d) of the Transfer of Property Act will have no 
application-Hence, 'shebaitship' is an inheritable right and is capable of 
being transferred 
A private family temple known as 'Pechiamman Temple' was founded E 
by one PC who had two sons, 'LP' and 'S'. One 'T', son of 'S', filed a suit 
which was decreed and the said decree had attained finality, pursuant whereto 
the branch of'S' became entitled to a right of term of management for a period 
of two years. Subsequently, 'LP' and his two sons, however, entered into a 
partition deed for division of their properties including the terms of F 
--'r 
manageme

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.