KAMALAKSHI AMMA Vs. KARTHIYANI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision filed by the first defendant in O.S. No. 510 of 1996 on the file of the Munsiff-II; Kozhikode. The above suit was filed by respondents 1 and 2 for partition of properties, consisting of the school and its properties, movable and immovable. There is an alternative prayer in the suit for framing a scheme for management of the School. The above suit was contested by the revision petitioner by saying that she got absolute right over the school and its properties on the basis of the gift deed executed by mother. The petitioner raised the contention in the above suit that she is the manager of the school approved by the educational authorities. The Trial Court passed a preliminary decree in the above suit negativing the contention of the petitioner that she got absolute right over the school and its properties on the basis of the gift deed. In the preliminary decree, there is a finding that a scheme has to be framed for the proper management of the properties appointing trustees thereof including the plaintiffs and defendants. There is a provision in the preliminary decree which would say that the parties could put forward suggestions for the framing of the scheme within two months from the date of passing of the decree. A decree for permanent injunction was also passed restraining the petitioner from making any new constructions in the plaint schedule properties and also from making any new appointments in the school (teaching or non teaching staff).

(2.) Petitioner filed A.S. No. 76 of 1999 in the District Court, Kozhikode. In the above appeal, an application, LA. No. 579 of 1999, was filed under O.41 R.5 to stay the operation and enforcement of the preliminary decree passed in O.S. No. 510 of 1996. Stay of operation of further proceedings in pursuance of the preliminary decree passed in the suit was also sought for in the above LA. The learned District Judge, passed an order in the above I.A. making provisions regarding appointment of teaching and non teaching staff and also regarding construction of building. The directions given by the learned District Judge is in Para.8 of the order and that part reads as follows:

(3.) Para.8 extracted above opens by saying that the power of appointment is vested with the Manager. It is after observing so, the learned District Judge directed constitution of a committee consisting of the petitioner and the three respondents for selection of persons for being appointed as teaching staff and non teaching staff. In the last portion of the above paragraph it is stated that the persons selected by the committee which will be presided over by a Senior Counsel appointed by the Court, will be appointed by the Manager. The direction that the Manager has to make appointment is seen to have given by the appellate court for the reason that the Manager is the appointing authority. What has to be understood from the direction given by the learned District Judge is that the right of selection of persons to be appointed as teaching and non teaching staff is taken away from the Manager and that is given to a committee and the right of issuing order appointing teaching and non teaching staff alone is given to the Manager.