Madras HC Upholds Permission for Rival Trustee Claimants to Mark Documents in Trust Sale Suit, Subject to Proof and Relevance

The petitioner, plaintiff in O.S. No. 345 of 2024, brought a specific-performance suit against respondents 3 and 4, who had agreed to sell trust property in their capacity as managing trustees.

Respondents 1 and 2, claiming to be hereditary trustees, sought impleadment and filed an application to reopen the suit and produce documents; they also sought permission for the second respondent to conduct the proceedings as the first respondent’s power agent.

The trial court allowed the applications.

The plaintiff challenged those orders under Article 227, arguing that the rival claims to trusteeship were being contested in separate proceedings and that respondents 1 and 2 should not participate or introduce documents in this suit.

Respondents 1 and 2 maintained that their participation was necessary to protect the trust and its property.

The petitions were brought under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The Court applied the principle that supervisory or revisional intervention is warranted where the challenged order discloses illegality, irregularity or perversity; it found no such ground here.

It also proceeded on the basis that permission to mark documents does not establish their truth or the rights asserted through them: admissibility, proof and relevancy remain open to objection and must be considered by the trial court before the documents are relied upon.

The competing claims to authority to represent the trust were central to whether respondents 3 and 4 could bind the trust through the sale agreement.

Since respondents 1 and 2 asserted an interest in the trust property, excluding them could affect their claimed interests; their participation therefore could not be rejected at the threshold.

The Court treated permission to mark their documents as procedural only, leaving the plaintiff free to contest their admissibility, proof and relevancy, and requiring the trial court to decide those objections before relying on the documents.

It found no infirmity in allowing the second respondent to act under the first respondent’s power of attorney.

The trial court’s orders permitting respondents 1 and 2 to participate, allowing the documents to be marked subject to proof and relevancy, and authorising the second respondent to act as the first respondent’s power agent were left undisturbed.

No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.