SIVAM Vs. R. DHANRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants herein filed a scheme suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for framing a scheme for the management and administration of the Trust and its properties. In the said suit, the appellants sought leave. A learned Single Judge of the High Court, in the said suit, looking to the averments made in the plaint and the situation of the trust properties, came to the conclusion that the trust properties are not situate within the original territorial jurisdiction of the High Court at Madras. In that view, the learned Judge refused to grant leave and dismissed the suit. The appellants filed appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court challenging the said order of the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench of the High Court, while accepting the view expressed by the learned Single Judge, affirmed his finding as to the jurisdiction but also proceeded to record a finding on the basis of the documents filed by the appellants themselves that the Trust being a private trust, a suit could not be entertained. Hence, these appeals by the plaintiffs.

(2.) The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants contended that having regard to the plaint averments and taking note of the fact that a bank account of the Trust is operating at Madras and money of the Trust is deposited in the said account and as such part of the trust properties being at Madras, both the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court were wrong in refusing leave and recording a finding that no part of the trust properties is situate within the original territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. He further contended that the Division Bench of the High Court committed serious error in recording a finding that the Trust was a private trust without there being an issue and without there being any opportunity to the appellants to support their case by way of evidence. According to the learned counsel, this finding, therefore, cannot be sustained.

(3.) In opposition, the learned Senior Counsel representing the seventh respondent made submissions supporting the impugned order. According to him, the impugned order is perfectly justified. He added that the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court were right in holding that no part of the trust properties is situate within the original territorial jurisdiction of the High Court and as such the leave sought for by the appellants could not be granted. As regards the second finding recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court, the learned counsel tried to support it too on the ground that it is on the basis of the documents produced by the appellants themselves that the Division Bench of the High Court took the view that the Trust was a private trust.