LexSINNAMANI & ANR. versus G. VETTIVEL AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 4 S.C.R. 513 SIN NAMAN I & ANR. v. G. VETTIVEL AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 4368 of 2012 etc.) MAY 09, 2012 [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] Trust Act, 1882 - s. 59 - Trust Original Petition - Filed A B by beneficiaries of trust - For execution of the trust - Original petition rejected being barred by s. 9 CPC as for the relief C sought, suit alone was maintainable - High Court upholding the order and also denying conversion of the petition into a suit - On appeal, Held: s. 59 gives right to the beneficiaries to sue for execution of trust only by filing a suit and not any original petition - When the Act provides for filing of a suit, o suit alone can be filed - In the absence of a statutory provision conversion of original petition to civil suit or vice-versa is not permissible - The petition cannot be construed as suit or equated to be a suit- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 26, r.3(9) and Ors. IV and VII. E Appellants-the beneficiaries of different trusts filed Trust Original Petition. On objection by the opposite party, the Trust Original Petition was rejected on the ground interalia that the Trust Original Petition was barred uls. 9 CPC as the relief sought, could have been agitated only F by means of a suit. High Court upheld the impugned order and also held that the Trust Original Petition could not be converted as a civil suit. Hence the present appeals. G Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. Section 59 of the Trust Act confers a right upon the beneficiaries to sue for execution of the trust which would indicate that the beneficiaries may institute 513 H 514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 4 S.C.R. A a suit for execution of the trust. Therefore, in order to execute the trust, the right is only to file a suit and not any original petition. Few of the provisions of the Act permit for filing of original petitions. Thus, when the Trust Act provides for filing of a suit then suit alone can be filed B and when it provides for original petition then original petition alone can be filed and there is no question of conversion of original petition to that of a civil suit or vice- versa, especially in the absence of a statutory provision under the Trust Act. Certain legislations specifically c provide for conversion of original petition into a suit. The Trust Act contains no such enabling provision to convert the original petition into a suit. [Paras 11 and 12] [519-C- G; 520-E] 2. A comprehensive reading of r. 3(9) CPC and s. D 2(14) CPC will make it clear that the original petition filed by the appellants cannot either be construed a suit or equated to be a suit. The final order passed in the original petition cannot also be construed as a decree as defined in Section 2(2) C.P.C. It can only be an "order" as defined E in Section 2(14) C.P.C. The term 'suit', as such is not defined in the CPC. However, Section 26, C.P.C. gives an indication as to the manner in which suit has to be instituted. A suit can be instituted by presentation of a plaint and Orders IV and VII C.P.C. deals with the F presentation of the plaint and the contents of the plaint. Chapter I of the Civil Rules of Practice deals with the form of a plaint. When the statutory provision clearly says as to how the suit has to be instituted, it can be instituted only in that manner alone, and no other manner. [Paras G 10 and 11] [518-F-G; 519-B-C] 3. The Trust Oirginal Petition cannot be allowed to be converted into a suit. However, the rejection of the Trust Original Petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC shall not H operate as a bar for the appellants to file a fresh suit in accordance with law. [Para 13] [520-F-G] SINNAMANI & ANR. v. G. VETIIVEL AND ORS. 515 P.A. Ahmad Ibrahim v. Food Corporation of India (1999) A 7 sec 39:1999 (1) Suppl. SCR 498 - relied on. Case Law Reference: 1999 (1) Suppl. SCR 498 Relied on. Para 11 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4368 of 2012 etc. From the Judgment & Order dated 11.09.2007 of the High Court of Madras, Madurai Bench in AS. No. 49 of 2006. WITH C.A. Nos. 4372-4386 of 2012. B c P.S. Narsimha, T.V. Ratnam, Sriram P., Munawwar Naseem, V. Prabhakar, Revathy Raghavan, Jyoti Prashar for D the Appellants. Vijay Hansaria, Ashok Mathur, S. Rajappa for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. These appeals arise out of a common judg
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.