1970 (1) TMI 91 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the rule in Tagore v. Tagore to the office of trusteeship.
2. Validity of the scheme of succession laid down by the founder.
3. Res judicata and whether the plaintiff is barred from agitating the question in view of the prior decision.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of the Rule in Tagore v. Tagore to the Office of Trusteeship:
The primary issue was whether the restrictions laid down in Tagore v. Tagore (1872) L.R. IndAp 47: 9 Beng. L.R. 377 apply to the office of trusteeship. The court examined the principles established in Tagore v. Tagore, which prohibit the creation of estates and rules of inheritance unknown to Hindu Law by gifts and wills. The court noted that the rule in Tagore v. Tagore applies to the parting with property once acquired, which must take effect either by inheritance or transfer according to law. The court found that the office of Dharmakartha, being a mere managerial position without beneficial interest, does not constitute property under Hindu Law. Therefore, the restrictions in Tagore v. Tagore do not apply to the office of Dharmakartha.

2. Validity of the Scheme of Succession Laid Down by the Founder:
The court examined whether the founder's scheme for the devolution of the office of trusteeship, which included descendants in both the male and female lines, was valid. The court recognized the inherent right of the founder to prescribe the mode of succession for the trusteeship, provided it is not inconsistent with the purpose of the endowment. The court noted that the founder's scheme did not involve the creation of a new form of estate in property but rather the appointment of individuals to manage the temple's affairs. The court concluded that the scheme of succession laid down by the founder was valid and did not violate the principles of Hindu Law.

3. Res Judicata and Whether the Plaintiff is Barred from Agitating the Question in View of the Prior Decision:
The court addressed whether the plaintiff was barred from re-agitating the issue due to the prior decision in the former suit. The court emphasized that the issues in the former suit were the same as those in the present suit, specifically the interpretation of the founder's will and the validity of the scheme of succession. Although the plaintiff was not a party to the former suit, the court found that the estate of the deceased trustee was sufficiently represented by the other legal representatives who were brought on record. The court applied the principle that a decision obtained with some legal representatives on record binds the entire estate, including those not brought on record. The court concluded that the prior decision was binding on the plaintiff, and the principle of res judicata barred the plaintiff from re-agitating the issues.

Conclusion:
The court held that the restrictions in Tagore v. Tagore do not apply to the office of Dharmakartha, the scheme of succession laid down by the founder was valid, and the plaintiff was barred by res judicata from re-agitating the issues. The judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Nagapattinam were set aside, and the suit was dismissed with costs.