SENGUNTHAR CHARITABLE TRUST REP BY ITS SECRETARY Vs. KARUR VYSYA BANK TIRUCHENGODE BRANCH SANGAGIRI ROAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.R.P (PD).No.1036 of 2010 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the respondents against the order, dated 19.10.2009 made in I.A.No.309 of 2009 in the unnumbered O.S.No.. of 2009 on the file of the District Judge, Namakkal, granting leave to file suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) THE plaintiffs, who are respondents 1 and 2 in the Civil Revision Petition, had filed the suit, stating that they are trustees of the Sengunthar Charitable Trust, the first revision petitioner herein, having its registered office at Door No.47-1, S.N.D.Road, Tiruchengode, Namakkal District, represented by its Secretary, wherein the reliefs sought for are : (a) to settle a scheme for the property by constituting public charitable trust in accordance with law (b) to remove the defendants 2, 4, 6 to 9, 12 and 13 from the first defendant trust, as per Section 92 (1) CPC and (c) for directing the defendants 1, 2 and 3 to submit the accounts of the first defendant trust from the financial year 2006-2007 onwards till the date of the decree.

(3.) IN the interlocutory application, the respondents 1 and 2 herein, as applications / plaintiffs have stated that the suit properties are the properties of the first revision petitioner-trust and further, averred that the Trust is being misused and abused for the personal benefit of the petitioners herein, who are the defendants in the suit. According to the respondents 1 and 2 / plaintiffs, a heavy amount to an extent of 10 crores had been borrowed on behalf of the Trust from the fourth respondent Bank, for which neither there was any agenda nor any resolution passed by the Trust. According to respondents 1 and 2 / plaintiffs, though the first revision petitioner is a public and charitable trust by its nature, the revision petitioners herein have misused and abused the same, in view of their close relationship with each other and they act as a close net work keeping the plaintiffs / respondents 1 and 2 away from the affairs and administration of the trust and the plaintiffs were also kept in dark with regard to the affairs of the trust. It has been further averred that there was pre-suit notice sent by the plaintiffs as early as on 12.12.2008, for which, no reply from the revision petitioners 2 to 13 was received. However, they are keen in lodging caveats and extending the caveats for the reasons best known to them.