logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 7358 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : WP No. 38180 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Parties : C. Gnanadas Versus The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: B. Mohan, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 to R4, Indhu Karunakaran, Special Government Pleader.
Date of Judgment : 29-09-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1, 3 and 4 to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 20.07.2026 for taking appropriate action against the A.J.C.Trust, the fifth respondent herein, constituted under the Trust Deed dated 20.12.2012 and registered as Document No.702 of 2012 in Book IV on the file of the fourth respondent.)

The prayer in the writ petition is for a mandamus directing respondents 1, 3 and 4 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 20.07.2026 for taking appropriate action against A.J.C.Trust, the fifth respondent herein, constituted under the trust deed dated 20.12.2012.

2. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material records of the case, the grievance of the petitioner is that the persons acting as trustees have unlawfully and illegally carried out several amendments and have committed certain omissions and commissions which, according to the petitioner are illegal and some of the actions also attract criminality.

3. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first to fourth respondents.

4. First of all, arraying A.J.C Trust itself as the fifth respondent is incorrect, as a trust is a concept and a trust is not a legal person. A trust is a dedication of movable or immovable property and it is nothing but its trustees ((i) Madasa Masih-ul-Uloom Educational and Charitable Trust vs. State of Karnataka & Ors (ii) F. Prince Vino vs. The Inspector General of Registration & Ors. (W.P.(MD) No. 1067 of 2026).). Therefore, if the trustees are acting illegally, action can only be taken against the trustees. If their action amounts to any criminal offence, an appropriate police complaint can be given. If their action amounts to any civil wrong, the petitioner has to approach the Civil Court and obtain such relief against them. The authorities have no power to cancel the trust or take action against them for any illegality whatsoever.

5. Yet another argument is made that the individuals have unlawfully abandoned the society. If any society has been registered and it has to be revived, this order will not come in the way of the petitioner taking such steps to revive the society that is registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975.

6. In view thereof, keeping a liberty of the petitioner to approach the appropriate authorities open, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.
 
  CDJLawJournal