RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI C R Vs. BHARGAVI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is a suit maintainable for modification of a scheme already settled by court for the administration of a private religious trust This is the interesting question that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The first defendant by name 'Elampalloor Devaswom Trust' is conceded by the parties to the suit to be a private religious trust. Therefore the provisions of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure do not ipso facto apply even though the principles can be extended. The scheme for administration of the trust had been settled in O.S. No. 280/1997-Sub Court, Kollam. There was a subsequent suit for modification of the said scheme in O.S. No. 408/1981 on the file of the same court. But the suit was dismissed and the decree is impugned in A.S. No. 100/2005-District court, Kollam which is stated to be pending. The present suit in O.S. No. 273/2011-Sub court, Kollam has been filed by persons who were not co-nominee parties to the earlier two suits. The principal prayer is for modification of the scheme settled as early as on 24.11.1958 in O.S. No. 280/1957. The other prayers in this suit are for accounting by the trustees and for their removal for breach of trust.

(2.) The second defendant who is the convenor of the trust raised a preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of the suit. His contentions were two fold and they are as follows:

(3.) The plaintiffs on the other hand contended that the scheme settled in O.S. No. 280/1957 does not enable any of the aggrieved parties to file applications. It is also contended that the plaintiffs are not parties to the earlier two suits for the doctrine of resjudicata to operate. The plaintiffs reiterate that the entire fabric of the scheme already settled has to be altered for which a new suit is necessary. The present suit has been filed on an altogether different cause of action which was not present when the earlier suits were filed. The plaintiffs in short maintained that the suit in O.S. No. 273/2011 for modification of the scheme settled in O.S. No. 280/1957 and for ancillary reliefs is maintainable.