P.ANNADURAI Vs. PACHAMUTHU EDUCATIONAL TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed challenging the order passed in I.A. No.4 of 2021 in I.A. No.1 of 2020 in O.S. No.129 of 2020, on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri.

(2.) The suit in O.S. No.129 of 2020 was filed by the petitioner against the respondents seeking the relief of declaration that defendants 2 to 6 have created forged, false document styled as letter of resignation dtd. 15.04.2018; declare that the resolution said to have passed by the defendants 2 to 5 dtd. 20.04.2018, is void, baseless, shame and nominal, arbitrary, capricious and not binding on the plaintiff; declaring that the codicil bearing registration No.7/BK4/2018, said to have been executed by the second defendant as the chairman of the first defendant is void, baseless, shame and nominal, arbitrary, capricious and not binding on the plaintiff; declaring that the resolutions passed by the defendants 2 to 6 in respect of the first defendant trust on and after 15.04.2018, in the absence of plaintiff are all void, baseless, shame and nominal, arbitrary, capricious and not binding on the plaintiff and the first defendant; declaring that the trustee / Secretary of the first defendant entitle to continue to function as Secretary / Trustee and consequently for injunction reliefs.

(3.) In order to dispose this Civil Revision Petition, it is necessary to find out the background and necessity of filing the application in I.A. No.4 of 2021. The case of the petitioner is that the second respondent / second defendant is his brother, third respondent is his wife and fourth and fifth respondents are the sons of the second respondent and sixth respondent is the daughter-in-law of the second respondent. First respondent is the trust established by late Pachiappa Gounder, the father of the petitioner. Pachiappa Gounder, due to his hard work, amassed wealth and the petitioner and second respondent have assisted Pachiappa Gounder, in his businesses and accumulation of properties. Pachiappa Gounder founded Pachamuthu educational trust. The first respondent was its Chairman and the petitioner was Secretary. It is registered as public trust. The object of the trust is to establish and promote educational institutions for advancement of education in arts, science, literature, humanity and all other useful subjects; to establish worship centres, community halls, hospitals, charitable dispensaries and child welfare centres, community halls, etc.; to provide medical relief and aid to the humanity and for promotion of research for medical science and other laudable objects. The trust was going well with establishment of several educational institutions. Subsequently, the second respondent inducted his wife and sons as trustees in the trust. The second respondent has better educational qualification and wide contacts. Taking advantage of his position and induction of his wife, children, daughter-in-law as trustees, they started to create forged documents against the petitioner and tried to expel the petitioner from the trust. They were colluding together to grab the trust properties as their family properties, thus defeating the object of the trust founded by Pachiappa Gounder. As a Secretary, the petitioner is entitled to ask for accounts and participate in the day to day affairs of the trust. However, the respondents 2 to 6 have created documents behind the back of the petitioner, created a false resignation letter as if it was submitted by the petitioner and passed resolution on the basis of forged resignation letter dtd. 15.04.2018, preventing the petitioner from functioning as Secretary / Trustee, and trying to encumber and alienate the trust properties. This necessitated the filling of the suit in O.S. No.129 of 2020. The petitioner has also filed I.A. No.1 of 2020 under Sec. 92 and 151 CPC, seeking permission to file a suit. Then realising that at least two persons should joint together to file a suit in respect of a public trust, the petitioner filed I.A. No.4 of 2021, for impleading the proposed party as second plaintiff in the suit. This petition was contested by the respondents. The learned Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri, on considering the rival submissions, dismissed the petition. Against the said dismissal order, this Civil Revision Petition is preferred.