RAMLATH MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST Vs. PEERUKANNU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge-II, Thiruvananthapuram granting leave to respondents 1 to 4 to institute a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of the 1st petitioner, which is stated to be a public charitable trust. On a previous occasion, the leave granted by the court below according permission to sue under Section 92 of the CPC has been challenged before this Court, and, then, noticing that meaningful opportunity had not been extended to the contesting respondents in the original petition, the order was set aside with direction to dispose the application in accordance with law. After such remission, the court below after hearing both sides, passed the impugned order, in which, some documents were also marked - Exts.A1 to A13 for the petitioners and Exts.B1 to B3 for the counter petitioners in the O.P. Among the materials produced, Ext.A1 was the copy of the trust deed and that alone, as seen from the impugned order, was taken into account with reference to the facts and circumstances presented and the principles applicable in deciding the question of leave.

(2.) Respondents 1 to 4 are the petitioners in the original petition. Claiming to be the well wishers and beneficiaries of the trust, the 1st respondent in the O.P., and imputing mismanagement, malpractices and misappropriation of the trust funds by the respondents 3 to 6, who are presently at the helm of affairs of the trust, the petition was filed seeking various reliefs viz. declaration that removal of the two original trustees by way of a subsequent registered deed is illegal and violative of the objects envisaged under the trust, that the subsequent deeds so created are null and void, preparation of a scheme for the trust, appointment of new trustee, prohibitory orders against respondents 3 to 6 from alienating the trust properties etc. The respondents 1 and 3 to 6, present revision petitioners, challenged the maintainability of the petition filing objections, in which, they contended that the petitioners in the O.P. are incompetent to apply for leave to sue for the reliefs canvassed and also that the proceedings initiated are mala fide and it is at the instance of the 2nd respondent in the O.P., who had previously filed a suit against the trust challenging her removal from the board of trustees, which was later withdrawn after dismissal of the I.A. moved for injunction. Some of the reliefs canvassed in the petition, it was contended, are outside the scope and ambit of a suit to be instituted with leave under Section 92 of the CPC.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioners assailed the order of the court below contending that respondents 1 to 4, the petitioners in the O.P., are not entitled to seek the reliefs claimed in relation with the trust and they are incompetent to apply and obtain leave to institute the suit as contemplated under Section 92 of the CPC in respect of the trust. In the O.P, other than a bald allegation that these respondents are "the well wishers and beneficiaries of the 1st counter petitioner trust", there is nothing more to show their interest in the trust, and, in fact according to the counsel, they are total strangers to the trust. A mere allegation that they are well wishers and beneficiaries in the petition is insufficient to show the interest of the petitioners, which is a primary requisite for grant of leave under Section 92 of the CPC, according to the counsel. Another ground of attack canvassed by the counsel is that the petition has been filed at the instance of the 5th respondent, who had previously filed a suit against the trust, but later, withdrew that case when the appeal preferred by her against the dismissal of her application for injunction had been confirmed by the appellate court. Even in her application of withdrawal of the suit, she had cited the filing of the present O.P. to seek permission for such withdrawal, is the submission of the counsel to contend that respondents 1 to 4 have filed the present O.P. at the instance of the 5th respondent after she had failed to get restrictive orders against the present revision petitioners/respondents 3 to 6, in the management of the 1st petitioner, the trust. The court below has not appreciated in the proper perspective the challenge raised by these petitioners (respondents 3 to 6) that the original petition has been filed to vindicate the private rights of the petitioners and also that of the 5th respondent, and not for prosecution of any public rights in relation to the public trust, is the submission of the counsel to assail the permission granted by the court below to the petitioners in the O.P. to institute the suit under Section 92 of the CPC in respect of the reliefs canvassed. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4 submitted that the leave had been granted by the court below after meticulously examining the questions involved and finding that there is no merit in any of the objections canvassed by the revision petitioners/respondents 3 to 6 in the original petition opposing the application for leave to sue for the reliefs in respect of the public trust. Ext.A1 deed disclose in unmistakable terms that a public trust had been created for to perpetuate the memory of the settler's mother for establishing educational institutions, orphanages, housing colonies to the poor and other institutions for charitable purposes. But, later, two other deeds were created so as to nullify the objects for which the trust was created and some of the trustees had been removed illegally from the management of the trust, submits the counsel. In the petition, the allegation of misappropriation, mismanagement by the present trustees and the need for framing of a scheme are also specifically stated to substantiate the permission sought for to institute a suit to seek the reliefs claimed in respect of the subject matter, the public trust. Petitioners in the O.P. are permanent residents in the locality belonging to a minority community, for the benefit of the weaker sections thereof, the trust had been created, and so much so, they have substantial interest in the welfare of the trust entitling them to seek for permission to sue for the reliefs, is the submission of the counsel. Previous suit filed by the 5th respondent in respect of the trust no way affect the right of the present petitioners nor does it indicate that the permission sought by them is to vindicate the private rights of the 5th respondent, is the further submission of the counsel. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent supported the contentions raised by the respondents 1 to 4 asserting that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned District Judge in granting permission to respondents 1 to 4/petitioners in the O.P. to institute the suit for the reliefs claimed in respect of the trust.