L SHIVALINGAIAH Vs. ANANDA SOCIAL AND EDUCATION TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts to be narrated in this appeal reveal the sorry state of affairs and the unfortunate events that have been created by the promoters of education who started institution with a laudable object in the name of a great personality of this Country.

(2.) This appeal is by the defendants in O.S. No. 4130 of 1984, on the file of the 15th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City. The plaintiffs in this suit had, on earlier occasion, filed O.S. Nos. 3028 of 1984 and 3707 of 1984. Those suits arc pending. In O.S. No. 3028 of 1984, an interim injunction was granted on 29-8-1984, which is the subject matter of another appeal. There is no interim order in O.S. No. 3707 of 1984. The facts which are necessary to appreciate the points in dispute are as follows : Defendants 1 to 9 are the appellants in this appeal and the respondents are plaintiffs ; the defendants and plaintiffs in the suit along with others, formed a Society which was registered under the Societies Registration Act, with the object of opening an educational institution, orphanage etc, for weaker section of the society including the other classes also. Thereafter, since the Government of Karnataka agreed to allot 25 acres of land, nine persons of the earlier Society formed a Trust called 'Ananda Social and Educational Trust' (hereinafter referred to as the Trust). A trust deed was registered on 10-1-1980. The trust started its functions and thereafter in course of time, opened a medical College called Dr. Ambedkar Medical College (hereinafter referred to as the Medical College). Dr. N. T. Mohan who was one of the trustees of the Trust has been appointed as a Principal of the Medical college. Things went on smoothly for nearly four years. Thereafter differences arose between the trustees resulting in cob web of litigation. The first of such litigation was in W.P. No. 13102 of 1984 filed by Shivaswamy. The petitioner therein is the second plaintiff in the present suit. His prayer in the said writ petition was questioning the appointment of Dr. N. T. Mohan as the Principal of the Medical College. The petitioner sought for an interim relief which was earlier granted. On an application for vacating, the Court made the following observation : "On the facts placed before me, I am satisfied that he does not have the required authority. In that view ofthe matter, it would be unjust to continue the interim order on the technical plea that he as an individual citizen in public interest to prosecute this writ petition. No doubt, several authorities have been cited before me in regard to this aspect of the case. I cannot accede to some of those authorities though I am bound by them as the facts of this case do not lend themselves in support of those cases. None of them support that this Court in its discretion should continue the stay when there is apparent lack of authority in the person who has moved this Court in using the names of institutions which do not appear to support his stand, in this court. For this reason alone, the stay granted earlier is vacated leaving all questions open to be decided either in this writ petition or in some other appropriate proceedings, if the court comes to the conclusion that the petition is not maintainable". The decision in the above writ petition was rendered on 23-8-1984. There after O.S. 3028 of 1984 was filed to declare that the original of the alleged supplementary Trust Deed registered on or about 20-6-1984, as invalid and unauthorised. It was also prayed that the 8th defendant in that suit has no right to interfere in any manner whatsoever with the affairs of the first plaintiff-Trust and the third defendant. It was also prayed that the first defendant should not use the name of the institution. This suit was filed by the Trust represented by Dr. N. T. Mohan and three others and the governing council of the Medical College was added as plaintiff-2 and the Medical College was also added as plaintiff The defendants in this suit were Shivaswamy-writ petitioner in W.P.No. 13102 of 1984 and other trustees besides seme other persons, who were not trustees. At this stage it is necessary to mention that though the first registered deed of trust was executed on 10-1-1980, before the filing of these suits, another trust deed came to be executed on 20-6-1984, which consisted of the 7 of the old trustees and some more trustees who are not parties to the arlier document. It should be mentioned that Dr. N. T. Mohan was not a trustee in the second document. It is the "original" of the second trust deed that has given rise to the various litigations.

(3.) Before I deal with the several clauses of the Trust Deed dated 10-1-1980, it is necessary to mention the undisputed facts regarding Dr. N. T. Mohan. Dr. N. T. Mohan was a professor of medicine in the services of the Karnataka Government. His services were lent to the Trust for being appointed as Principal of the Medical College. After the creation of the socalled Trust on 20-6-1984, his services were withdrawn by the State Government by issue of a notification. It is submitted by the plaintiff that though his services were withdrawn, the Trust did not relieve him and he continues to be in the services of the Trust. It is also not disputed that by notification dated 27th February 1985, the State Government has issued an order of suspension as against Dr. N. T. Mohan for his unauthorised absence. The said suspension order is still holding the field. It is not necessary for me to refer to the second socalled trust deed dated 20th of June 1984, because the argument were advanced on the understanding that the matter is governed by the first trust deed dated 10-1-1980. The Trust deed states that there are nine members in the Trust. The trust deed is signed by all the trustees. Clause 7 of the Trust deed reads as follows : "7. The Trustees shall have powers to vary, to extend or to amend from time to time, any of the terms of this deed by an instrument in writing provided that such variation, extension or amendment shall not be inconsistent with the provisions of Income Tax Act and Rules framed thereunder, governing charitable trusts, societies and Associations etc." Clause 8 permits the trustees to frame or amend rules for the conduct of their own business and proceedings for the management of the trust and its properties in the good interest of the aims and objects of the Trust. Clause 9 reads thus: