SHANMUGHAN Vs. VISHNU BHARATHEEYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 3 of 1996 on the file of the District Court, Thrissur. First defendant is the appellant in A.S. No. 415 of 2000 and the second defendant is the appellant in A.S. No. 419 of 2000.

(2.) Suit was instituted by respondents 1 to 3 in these appeals under Section 26 and Order VII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 49 of the Indian Trust Act seeking modification of some of the stipulations in Ext. Al trust deed giving exclusive rights to the first defendant and to place fetters with regard to the rights of the first defendant to manage the affairs of the properties of the "Sakshal Chathan Seva Madom" and also for a direction to the effect that the first defendant shall function as trustee only along with the first plaintiff and also for other consequential reliefs.

(3.) We may deal with the facts in detail in the latter part of the judgment, after dealing with some of the legal questions raised for consideration. Admittedly the trust created under Ext. Al document is a private religious trust. Interlocutory application, LA. No. 1388 of 1996, was moved by the plaintiffs to appoint a Receiver to manage the affairs of the trust pending suit. The Court below allowed the said prayer by order dated 7-9-1998 and issued certain directions. Maintainability of the suit was also considered by the Court at that time and found that the Court has got jurisdiction to proceed with the matter. That order was challenged before this Court in C.M.A. No. 336 of 1998. Though Division Bench of this Court approved the order directed the Court below to consider the question of jurisdiction afresh at the final stage of the proceedings. The Court below examined the said question and took the view that the suit is not maintainable under Section 49 of the Indian Trust Act. However, the Court proceeded to resolve the dispute holding that since District Court is the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in the district it has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit when no prejudice is caused to the parties and disposed of the suit. The Court below decreed the suit in part and a preliminary decree was passed by order dated 1-6-2000 with certain directions and those directions are under challenge in these appeals.