S SUKUMAR Vs. M RAMMOHAN SHANMUGHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revisions can be dealt with together, as both of them arise from the same order dated 9. 9. 1992 in O. S. No. 68 of 1948 as amended in O. S. No. 17 of 1960 of the (Scheme Court), Subordinate Judge, mayiladuthurai. Brief history of the case is as follows: A. V. Charities, Mayiladuthurai, is a Trust which is governed by a Scheme Decree made in O. S. No. 68 of 1948 dated 24. 7. 1951 on the file of Sub Court, mayavaram as amended in O. S. No. 17 of 1960 on the file of the same court. As per the said Scheme Decree, the Management of the Trust vests in a Board of trustees consisting of a Chairman and five Trustees to be appointed by the Scheme Court from among the members of the original five families that gave the original endowment. The five families that gave the original endowment are: (1) Anbanathapuram family, (2) Enathiman-galam family, (3) Pallavarayapet family, (4) Karu-gudi family, and (5) Kanganamputhur family. Every member of the Board appointed by the court is entitled to hold office for a period of five years from the date of his appointment The Scheme Decree also provides that the appointment of a trustee in any vacancy caused by efflux of time by resignation, removal, death or disqualification shall be filled up by the Scheme Court from among the male members, of the five families having due regard to the representation of the aforesaid five families. Right from the inception the Board of Trustees of the aforesaid Trust has been represented by one member from each one of the aforesaid five families and the sixth member from any one of the said families which vacancy has been termed as general vacancy. Thus, as and when vacancy arose in the office of the Trustee, the same was filled by appointment by the court from among the male members of the respective family. Two vacancies were intimated, by the Manager of the Charities to the Scheme Court in August, 1992. One of the vacancy arose out of the expiry of the period of office of Trusteeship of the first petitioner S. Sukumar belonging to Kanganamputhur family. The second vacancy arose on account of the expiry of the period of office of the respondent who was holding the office under the' general vacancy'The Scheme Court issued a notice on 12. 8. 1992 inviting applications for filling up both the above vacancies. Pursuant to the aforesaid Notification 13 applications were made to the Scheme Court . The petitioners 1 and 2 in C. R. P. No. 2692 of 1992 and Thiru Sadayappan petitioner in c. R. P. No. 2807 of 1992 belong to the Kanganamputhur family and therefore they claimed appointment to the vacancy of Trusteeship in respect of the said family. The other ten applicants claim in respect of the general vacancy. The scheme Court has passed an order on 9. 9. 1992 rejecting the claims of the petitioners and Thiru Sadayappan for appointment to the office of the trusteeship in respect of the Kanganamputhur family and appointing the respondent herein as a Trustee in the place of the outgoing Trustee belonging to the Kanganamputhur family. By the said order the Scheme Court has also appointed Dr. Chockalingam belonging to one of the families in the general vacancy. Aggrieved by the order of the Scheme Court appointing the respondent as a Trustee in respect of a vacancy caused by the expiry of the term of office belonging to Kanganamputhur family, the petitioners filed the two revisions. According to them the order of the court below is patently illegal, opposed to the provisions of the Scheme Decree besides being opposed to the orders of this court which have considered the scope of the provisions of the Scheme Decree. The Board of Trustees who comprise of six persons from among the male members of the five families having due regard to the representation of all the five families. According to the petitioners, at present there is no representative from the Kanganamputhur family while there are two representatives for pallavarayapet family and Enathimangalam family. In terms of the Scheme Decree, only one family can have two representatives, one representing the family earmarked for them and the other in the general vacancy. The appointment of the respondent is thus patently illegal having regard to the fact that his appointment has been made to a Kanganamputhur family' 's vacancy and in particular having regard to the fact that the petitioners and the other person belonging to the said family are not found to be disqualified to hold the said office.

(2.) THE revision petitions were resisted by the respondent mr. Rammohan Shanmugham. According to the respondent, the impugned order of the scheme Judge appointing him as one of the Trustees is quite reasonable, and that the Scheme Court has got powers to appoint from among the general vacancies to the vacancy of any particular family. It is submitted that there is no illegality or irregularity in the order of Scheme Court. THE Scheme Court has considered all the relevant materials for assessing the entitlement of various claimants to the two vacancies in the Board of Trustees and has ample powers to pass the order under revision.

(3.) AS I propose to dispose of the two revisions on a shorter ground, I feel it wholly unnecessary for me to deal with the extensive arguments of both the parties or the citations cited by them.