R KANNAN ADITYAN Vs. B S ADITYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS unfortunate litigation pertains to the well known Thanthi Trust which publishes the popular Tamil daily DINATHAN-THI (DAILY THANTHI) simultaneously at present from nine centres in Tamil Nadu. THIS Public trust was founded by a deed of trust dated 1-3-1954 by the late S.B.Adityan, reverentially known as Si.Pa.Adityanar, a former speaker of the Madras Legislative Assembly and a former Minister of the Government of Tamil Nadu. The appellants are the grandsons of the Founder, being the sons of his elder son B.R.Adityan. The first respondent herein, B.S.Adityan, is the younger son of the Founder. The object of this trust is to establish DINATHANTHI or DAILY THANTHI as an organ of educated public opinion for the Tamil reading public, to disseminate news and to ventilate opinion upon all matters of public interest through the said newspaper and to maintain the said newspaper and its position in efficient condition devoting the surplus income of the said newspaper and its press after defraying all expenses in improving and enlarging the said newspaper and its services and placing the same on a footing of permancy. By a supplemental deed of trust dated 28-6-1961 the Founder enlarged the objects of that trust and directed the utilisation of the surplus income of the trust for

(2.) IN 1978, the Founder appointed himself, his elder brother S.T.Adityan and his elder son B.R.Adityan as additional trustees again, which led to a spate of litigation. The first respondent herein filed (C.S.Nos.352 and 353 of 1978) Thanthi Trust Rep. By(L) Director, B.S. Adityanar and 2 Others v. Si. Pa. Adityanar and Another on the file of this Court after obtaining the necessary permission under S.92 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the appointment of the Additional trustee by the Founder. As a counter-blast the father of the appellants herein, B.R.Adityan and the Founders elder brother S.T.Adityan filed Application No.3147 of 1978 for leave to sue under S.92 of the Code of Civil Procedure for removing the first respondent from trusteeship. The application was resisted by the first respondent. Pending these proceedings the three additional trustees viz., the Founder, his elder brother S.T.Adityan and his elder son and father of the appellants resigned their trusteeship and the Application No.3147 of 1978 for leave to sue was also withdrawn. Consequently the first respondent withdrew his suits in C.S.Nos.352 and 353 of 1978 as they became infructuous on account of the resignation of the Additional trustees. These proceedings accordingly came to an end.

(3.) IN pursuance of this Bench decision the learned counsel for the appellants herein produced for the inspection by the counsel for the respondents herein two set of documents on 3-11-1982. The first set consisted of certified copies of the documents taken after the filing of the application for leave to sue and the second set consisted of the source material i.e., the immediate originals from which copies in the typed set have been taken. As according to the respondents this was not due compliance with the order of the Bench, they filed Application No.4738 of 1982 under O.ll, R.21 of the Code of Civil Procedure for dismissing Application No,165 of 1981 filed by the appellants for leave to sue under S.92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application was contested by the appellants. Singaravelu, J. in his order dated 11-2-1983 found that the appellants have not complied with the order of the appellate Bench, in respect of the production of documents mentioned in the plaint, that they have withheld those documents in order to prevent disclosure of the source and allowed the application. Consequent he dismissed the main Application No.160 of 1981 for leave to sue filed by the appellants. It is against these orders these appeals are preferred.