RAJAGOPAL Vs. BALACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner and the three respondents are the trustees of Kottur Rangasamy Mudaliar trust ('KRM Trust') in Short). THE first respondent is the Managing Trustee. A scheme decree was passed by the scheme Court viz District Court, Tanjore. THEreafter, the trustees who were then on the Board of Trustee filed several appeal for modification of the scheme and by the judgment dated 6.12.1916, the scheme was modified by a Division Bench of this Court. Para 25 of the scheme Decree as modified by this Court gave liberty to the parties to apply to the District Court, Tanjore for further directions in the future. THE petitioner herein filed I.A.No.7 of 1998 before the scheme Court to enquire into the facts of commission and omission and to pass such orders and give such directions as are proper and necessary for the better administration of. the Trust Estate. This was dismissed by the Scheme Judge namely, the Principal District Judge at Nagapatinam and therefore, this revision has been filed.

(2.) PENDING revision, C.M.P.No.6131 of 2001 was filed by a third party to the petition who was a Judge of this Court and the Karnataka High Court and thereafter, the Vice Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal. In his affidavit filed in support of the petition he has indicated that the objects of the Trust should be fully implemented and the Trust should be preserved. His grievance is that many of the laudable objects of the Trust have been allowed to fall into misuse and he prays that this Court should exercise its pareus patriae control over the Trust, and regularise the activities of the Trust so that the intentions of the founder are fully carried out. The affidavit makes it clear that he is not interested in being put in management of the Trust but he seeks to implead himself only as a member of the founder's family.

(3.) IN Sangamesh Printing Press v. Chief Executive Officer, 1999 (6) SCC 441, it was held thus ,