Arunachella Chetti Vs. Muthu Chettiar and anr. - Court Judgment |
| Civil |
| Chennai |
| Jul-14-1880 |
| Kindersley and ;Forbes, JJ. |
| 17Ind.Cas.586; (1912)23MLJ347 |
| Arunachella Chetti |
| Muthu Chettiar and anr. |
procedure code (act xiv of 1882), section 539, scope of - suit against trespasser. - kindersley, j.1. in the present case, the plaintiff, as the person having hereditary right to the management of a public charity, sues a person whom he regards as a trespass er. this is not the case of one of the general public and suing without the authority of the advocate-general or other officer to secure the due performance of the trust, and, i think, that section 539, civil procedure code, does not apply. the decision of the two lower courts must be reversed and the suit must be remanded to the subordinate courts for decision on the merits.2. the costs will be disposed of by the final decree.forbes, j.3. section 539 is applicable only in cases of an alleged breach of an express or constructive trust created for a public charitable purpose. the restriction on the right of suing is thus confined to cases where the person sued is a trustee. in the present case, the suit is brought against an alleged trespasser, whose title to manage is denied and who, if he is without title, cannot be guilty of a breach of trust.
Kindersley, J.
1. In the present case, the plaintiff, as the person having hereditary right to the management of a public charity, sues a person whom he regards as a trespass er. This is not the case of one of the general public and suing without the authority of the Advocate-General or other officer to secure the due performance of the trust, and, I think, that Section 539, Civil Procedure Code, does not apply. The decision of the two lower Courts must be reversed and the suit must be remanded to the Subordinate Courts for decision on the merits.
2. The costs will be disposed of by the final decree.
Forbes, J.
3. Section 539 is applicable only in cases of an alleged breach of an express or constructive trust created for a public charitable purpose. The restriction on the right of suing is thus confined to cases where the person sued is a trustee. In the present case, the suit is brought against an alleged trespasser, whose title to manage is denied and who, if he is without title, cannot be guilty of a breach of trust.