In a significant legal battle, the Supreme Court has settled the trusteeship dispute between Umapathymurthy and K.S. Sabapathy. The case involved complex issues surrounding the inheritance of trusteeship of a temple, with the Trial Court’s findings becoming final. Stay tuned to learn more about the outcome of this case!
Facts
- The High Court relied on sale deeds dated 11.08.1948 and 22.06.1950 to establish Umapathymurthy as the eldest son and K.S. Sabapathy as the second minor son of Sadhasivamurthy.
- In a settlement deed dated 19.09.1947, it was stated that the eldest son of the deceased trustee would become his successor.
- Based on O.S. No 8664/1988, the Trial Court found that the Appellant and his uncle were trustees of the temple.
- The Court confirmed this finding by referring to documents proving the Appellant’s father, K.S. Sabapathy, as the eldest son of Sadhasivamurthy.
- The Appellant had been dispossessed from the trusteeship by his younger brother, K.S. Sabapathy.
- Execution Petition No 1910/1992 was filed by the decree holders against the Appellant and his uncle, leading to an application under Section 47 of CPC alleging fraud in the original decree.
- The executing court noted that objections to the heir certificate were not raised when it was presented in the Trial Court.
- The suit filed on behalf of the temple by K.S. Jaganathan and S. Bhaskaran sought injunction against tenants Gnanambal and her husband, involving Umapathymurthy as a defendant.
- The High Court observed that the decree passed in the original suit was a nullity and could not be enforced.
- The executing court dismissed E.A. No 5750/2003 filed under Section 47 of the CPC as non-maintainable.
- The executing court based this decision on the fact that the Trial Court’s judgment had been confirmed by the First Appellate Court and had become final.
- A revision petition was filed against this order, which was allowed by the High Court in the impugned judgment.
- The Appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court in O.S.No.8664/1988, and no further appeal was preferred.
Also Read: Tower Infotech Ltd. Bail Order Appeal
Analysis
- The Trial Court did not decide trusteeship based solely on the heir certificate.
- Other documents were also considered in the adjudication of trusteeship.
- K.S. Sabapathy was found ineligible to become the trustee of the temple.
- The Trial Court’s findings on trusteeship have become final.
- Umapathymurthy and other Respondents are bound by the Trial Court’s findings.
- The decision of the High Court in the impugned judgment was disagreed with after examining the records and Trial Court’s findings.
- No objections were raised by Sadhasivamurthy at the time regarding the heir certificate considered by the Trial Court.
- The First Appellate Court confirmed the Trial Court’s judgment, and no further appeal was made by the Respondents.
- Executing court cannot go beyond the order or decree under execution
- Trial court found that Appellant and his uncle were trustees of the temple
- Umapathymurthy contested the suit claiming to be the eldest son of Sadhasivamurthy
- The High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by allowing re-opening of the question of trusteeship in an execution petition.
- The executing court’s decision to dismiss E.A. No. 5750/2003 should have been affirmed as the Trial Court’s findings had attained finality.
- The impugned judgment is illegal and without jurisdiction.
Also Read: Priority of Employees’ Dues in Asset Sale: SARFAESI Act vs. Land Revenue Code
Decision
- The impugned order dated 10.12.2007 in Civil Revision Petition No. 1007 of 2007 passed by the High Court is set aside.
- The order of the City Civil Court, Chennai dated 31.01.2007 in E.A. No 5750/2003 is restored.
Also Read: Landmark Judgement on Consumer Rights in Healthcare Sector
Case Title: S. BHASKARAN Vs. SEBASTIAN (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.
Case Number: C.A. No.-007800-007800 / 2014
