SWAMI SUKRUTHANANDA AND OTHERS Vs. SREE NARAYANA DHARMA SANGHAM TRUST SIVAGIRI MUTT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SWAMI RITHAMBARANANDA, SIVAGIRI MUTT, VARKALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order passed on I.A.No.1269 of 2016 in O.S.No.127 of 1954 on the file of the Court of Sub Judge, Attingal.

(2.) Appellants are members of a public charitable trust known as "Sree Narayana Dharma Sanghom Trust", hereinafter mentioned as the "Trust". The Trust is being governed by a Scheme approved by this Court by judgment dated 26.03.1959 in A.S.No.14 of 1956 and C.M.A.No.3 of 1955. The original suit was one for framing a Scheme. A Scheme had been drawn up while the matter was pending in appeal before this Court. As the parties had agreed to accept the Scheme prepared pending the litigation, this Court dismissed the appeal and the C.M.A. accepting the Scheme. Ext.R4(c) is the Scheme. As per Clause 83 of the Scheme, two members of the Trust can challenge any act of the trustees before the Sub Court, Attingal if it was in violation of the Scheme. As per the Scheme, Trust Board consists of minimum seven members and maximum eleven members elected from among the members of the Trust on a special meeting. Term of the Board is five years from the date of assumption of office. Till such time, the previous Board can function by virtue of Clause 79 of the Scheme.

(3.) On 12.10.2016, the general body of the Trust, through a secret ballot, elected 11 members of the Board. The former President Swami Prakasananda lost the election. He issued a notice on 12.10.2016 under Clause 44 of the Scheme, which is challenged in another proceedings before the lower court. On 13.10.2016, the out going President issued a notice to the newly elected members asking them to participate in a meeting to be held on 20.10.2016. Since the notice itself was issued without complying with the provisions of the Scheme, the appellants filed an interlocutory application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 before the Sub Court, Attingal, invoking Clause 83 of the Scheme. In that matter, the impugned order was passed. According to the appellants, the court below ought to have found that the notice issued by the 3rd respondent contravened Clauses 27 and 28 of the Scheme. They contend that outgoing President has no authority to convene a single special meeting of the Board to elect the President, General Secretary and Treasurer in one go.