NARAYANA PAI Vs. VITTALA SHENOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arise out of an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Parur directing the Receiver appointed by that court to hand over possession of the suit properties to defendants 6 to 9. It is necessary to state very briefly the events leading up to this C.R.P. and C.M.A.

(2.) Plaintiffs, claiming to be persons interested in the proper administration of the trust, have filed O.S. No. 72 of 1957 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Parur for a declaration that the election of defendants 1 to 5 to the Managing Committee under a scheme is not valid and legal and that they are not entitled to function as people in charge of the management of the institution. In the suit itself the plaintiffs have also asked for an injunction restraining defendants 1 to 5 from taking and defendants 6 to 9 from delivering charge to the members of the new committee. It is also seen that defendants 6 to 10 who are members of the old committee ceased to be in the management on 24--7--1957 by virtue of the clauses in the scheme which governs the administration of the said institution. In consequence an election appears to have taken place and defendants 1 to 5 were declared duly elected on 27--3--1957 and in the ordinary course of events they should have taken charge of their office on 25--7--1957. On 24--7--1957, i.e., one day before they were due to take charge, the plaintiffs filed the suit for the reliefs mentioned above. They appear to have obtained an interim order of injunction as prayed and after notice to the parties the application for injunction was vehemently opposed by defendants 1 to 5. The learned Subordinate Judge who heard that application came to the conclusion that the election of defendants 1 to 5 to the committee of management cannot be said to be valid in law. The learned Judge also held that in consequence of this finding, defendants 1 to 5 cannot be allowed to assume management of the Devaswom. In paragraph 10, the learned Judge further observes that defendants 1 to 5 have levelled very serious charges against defendants 6 to 10. It is also stated "Counsel for defendants 6 to 10 submits that his parties are not at all anxious to cling to office. Hence I think that the proper course should be to appoint a receiver to administer the affairs of the Devaswom till the disposal of the suit".

(3.) In consequence of this finding, the learned Judge granted the injunction as prayed for and also appointed a receiver to take charge of the properties from defendants 6 to 9.