Besthava Naidu Community’s Trust Land Sold Two Days After Sangam Formed: Madras HC Upholds Recovery, Finding Sangam Had No Title

The plaintiffs, members of the Besthava Naidu Community, sued for a declaration that a 1976 sale of community property to the fourth defendant was invalid and for recovery of possession. They alleged that defendants 1–3, who managed the property as trustees, lacked authority to sell it.

The defendants contended that a registered community Sangam had authorised the sale. The trial court decreed the suit, and the first appellate court affirmed. The fourth defendant’s legal representatives brought the second appeal, which was admitted on questions concerning jurisdiction and Section 92 CPC; additional questions included Order I Rule 8 CPC, non-joinder, and the validity of the sale

Section 92 CPC applies to specified proceedings concerning public trusts, including suits seeking the reliefs enumerated in that provision; not every suit concerning trust property falls within it, and a claim against a third-party purchaser to protect property rights may lie outside its scope.

A trust benefiting an unascertained and fluctuating section of the public may be public.

The court applied Order I Rule 8 CPC and held, relying on Kalyan Singh v. Chhoti, AIR 1990 SC 396, and Hari Ram v. Jyoti Prasad, AIR 2011 SC 952, that a community member may sue to protect community property; it also found that representative notice had in fact been published.

Under Order I Rule 13 and Section 99 CPC, non-joinder objections must be raised at the proper stage and a decree is not to be reversed for non-joinder except where a necessary party is absent.

The court further applied res judicata to the amendment issue previously determined in revision.

A person or entity cannot convey a better title than it possesses (nemo dat quod non habet), and charitable or religious property must be protected against unauthorised alienation.

The court treated the property as belonging to a public trust for the Besthava Naidu Community, whose beneficiaries were unascertained and fluctuating.

It nevertheless held that the suit did not fall within Section 92 CPC: the plaintiffs sought to invalidate a conveyance and recover property from a third-party purchaser, rather than obtain one of the specified forms of relief concerning trust administration.

The Order I Rule 8 objection failed because publication had been made and, independently, community members could sue to protect community property.

The non-joinder objection had not been raised earlier, and the court considered the Sangam unnecessary to effectively decide whether defendants 1–3 could convey the property; the prior order allowing the plaint amendment also could not be reopened after its confirmation in revision.

On the merits, historical records and the defendants’ own evidence supported the finding that the property belonged to the community and had not been transferred to the Sangam. As the Sangam therefore lacked title, it could not convey the property; the court also found no demonstrated necessity or justification for the sale.

The second appeal was dismissed; the decrees of the trial and first appellate courts were confirmed, with costs throughout. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.