KAMUDAVALLI Vs. P N PURUSHOTHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs in a suit filed u/s 92, C. P. C. , in C. S. No. 73 of 1972, on the file of the Original Side of this court, are the appellants. After obtaining the sanction from the Advocate General, Madras, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit to remove the defendant from trusteeship, for appointing a fit and proper person as trustee for a public trust endowed for the purpose of running and maintaining what is known as Nagammal Hindu Higher Elementary school, which was dedicated by late Nathamuni Chetti under a deed of trust dated 2-61941. For the said purpose certain immoveable properties were also earmarked by the author of the trust. The plaintiffs complained of mismanagement by the respondent, who is now functioning as trustee. They would claim to be interested in the trust, the first plaintiff being the widow of late Nathamuni chetti and the second plaintiff being a close relation and old boy of the elementary school besides being a resident of the locality. They catalogued several events in the plaint according to which their main complaint is that the defendant failed to maintain the school as per the directions of the trust and the author of the trust and has also caused wanton and continuous breach of the express terms thereof. They would also demand an account from the defendant from 1969 till date and sought for ancillary reliefs. The defendant in the written statement questions the status of the second plaintiff as a plaintiff in a suit under Section 92 C. P. C; as he is not a descendant of the founder and as he cannot be said to have any real or substantial interest in the trust. He would, therefore, allege that the suit is not properly framed and therefore, not maintainable, as the primary requirements under Section 92 C. P. C. is that there should be two or more persons interested in the trust, who could seek for any reliefs set out in the section. Besides challenging the sanction given by the advocate General the defendant would complain that the plaintiffs' objective is to enrich themselves and not to further the objects of the trust. He would deny that he has committed any acts of waste and would plead that if any other trustee is appointed to manage the trust in the place of the defendant it would amount to a violation of the founder's express desire and considered intention. Paul J. who tried the suit, framed the following Issues-1. Whether the suit is not maintainable for any reason? 2. Whether valid sanction has been obtained from the Advocate general under Section 92 C. P. C. ? 3. Whether the trust is being mismanaged by the defendant? 4. Whether the grant is suspended on account of mismanagement on the part of the defendant? 5. Whether any breach of the wish of the founder of the trust was caused by the defendant? 6. Whether the first plaintiff is entitled to file the suit? 7. To what relief is the plaintiff is entitled?

(2.) ON the first issue, the learned Judge found that the suit was not maintainable since in the related circumstances the second plaintiff cannot be said to have the requisite interest to file and prosecute the action. He held that the plaintiffs obtained due sanction and the plaintiffs are entitled to file the suit. On issues 3, 4 and 5, which covered the main points of controversy between the plaintiffs and the defendant, the learned Judge after an elaborate discussion into the oral and documentary evidence held that the main item of trust, namely, the nagammal Hindu Higher Elementary school is being mismanaged by the defendant and that the grant by the Government was suspended on account of such mismanagement and that the defendant did act against the wishes of the founder. In the end, however, the learned Judge observed as follows

(3.) THE respondent is not represented before us. It, therefore, became necessary for us to consider the question in some detail. We may at once state that as the respondent is not before us and has not cared to challenge in any manner the findings of the learned Judge on issues 3, 4 and 5, which is to the effect that the defendant did commit acts of waste and mismanaged the trust and acted against the wishes of the founder, it is not necessary for us to retread the ground. We however perused the judgment and we have no reason at all to differ from the findings on these issues of the learned Judge. We therefore, confirm the same.