R.MOHAN Vs. R.VENKATESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Original Side Appeals have been filed to set aside the common order passed by the learned Judge in A.Nos.1129 and 1130 of 2023 in C.S.No.536 of 2009 on 30/3/2023.

(2.) Originally, the suit in C.S.No.536 of 2009 was filed by the plaintiffs praying to pass a decree : (i)to remove the defendants from the office of trustees of Thiruneelakandar Trust, (ii) for declaration that the first plaintiff is a life trustee of Thiruneelakandar Trust, (iii) to appoint the second plaintiff and Parthasarathi as co-trustees with the first plaintiff entitled to administer the trust with powers to take possession of the properties of the trust and to collect outstanding dues in favour of the trust; and (iv) to direct the defendants to account for the earnings of the trust that have been misappropriated and pay the same to the trust. It was stated in the plaint that the first defendant, wife of one Venugopal Reddy who constituted the said Thiruneelakandar Trust for the noble purpose of promoting education and other related purposes, has been committing several acts of maladministration of the Trust joining hands with her relative by name Mohan, the second defendant in the suit / appellant herein.

(3.) The first plaintiff has been appointed as a life trustee of the said Trust, by the deceased Venugopal Reddy who constituted the Trust and he died on 5/1/2012 and the other two plaintiffs continued to conduct the case. The first plaintiff, by a Will dtd. 4/8/2010, appointed one D.Varadarajulu as the successor to the office held by him in the said Trust. Subsequent to the death of D.Varadarajulu, who has been appointed by way of a Will by his predecessor and one T.Chakravarthi, who was appointed as a Trustee of the Trust, A.No.1129 of 2023 has been filed by one R.Venkatesh praying that he be substituted as the first plaintiff instead of late D.Varadarajulu in C.S.No.536 of 2009 and A.No.1130 of 2023 has been filed by one P.Ganapathi, praying that he be substituted in the position of the second plaintiff instead of late T.Chakravarthi in the said suit. The said applications were resisted by the defendants stating that on the date when permission was obtained under Sec. 92 CPC for filing the suit, the applicants were not the trustees and hence, they cannot be inducted directly without getting any prior permission under Sec. 92 CPC and that, the resolution passed by the Trust in this connection itself is invalid.