KARUPPUSAMY PILLAI Vs. SWAMI SUBRAMANIA CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the above said Letters Patent Appeals, the following question was referred for decision: "whether Letters Patent Appeal would lie against the order of a learned single Judge of the High Court passed in a Civil miscellaneous Appeal""

(2.) THE necessary facts leading to the reference of the abovesaid question are as follows: One Durairajan and his son D. Rajkumar filed a scheme suit in O. S. No. 684 of 1995 on the file of Sub-Judge, Coimbatore, to frame a scheme for the administration of a trust known as G. R. Govindarajulu & Sons Charities. THE trust was created by a trust deed dated 15. 9. 1958. In the said scheme suit, I. A. No. 944 of 1995 was filed praying for an interim injunction restraining D. Srinivasan from acting as a trustee. I. A. No. 943 of 1995 was filed praying for an interim injunction restraining the respondents therein from re-constituting and replacing or altering the Trust Board without the sanction of the Court. Interim injunction in both the above said applications were initially granted by the trial court. THE trial court then by a common order dated 26. 8. 1995 vacated the interim injunction granted in both the applications on the grounds (1) Chandrakanthi and Rengasamy in collusion co- opted the trustees and disqualified Seethalakshmi as trustee, without notice; (2) the meetings were not held as per the trust deed or resolutions; and (3) D. Srinivasan is not a fit person for trusteeship and he was restrained from attending the Trust Board meetings and allowed Seethalakshmi to act as a trustee in the Trust Board.

(3.) AS already stated, the present appeals under clause 15 of the Letters Patent are filed against the order of the learned single Judge in C. M. A. Nos. 1341 of 1995 etc. , The main objection taken in these appeals is that no letters patent appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent would lie against the appellate order of the learned single Judge of this Court. The objection to the maintainability of the appeal is mainly based on the following decisions: M/s. New Kenilworth Hotel (P) Ltd. , v. Orissa State finance Corporation , 1997 (2) L. W. 276; Rosham Singh Pyara Singh v. Abdul sattat , 1996 (I) C. T. C. 185 : 1996 (1) L. W. 357; Sarasammal v. Murugasamy and others , 1995 (I) C. T. C. . 450; Somasundaram v. Thangaraju , 1997 (1) L. W. 506; madan Naik v. Hansubala Devi , AIR 1983 S. C. 676; B. S. Adityam v. Financing association of India , Jabalpur, AIR 1991 M. P. 316; Union of India v. Mohindra supply Co. , AIR 1962 S. C. 256; Charity Commissioner, Bombay v. Rajendra Singh , AIR 1984 Bom. 478. It is upon those judgments, it was argued that section 104 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure bars appeals under clause 15 of the letters Patent. Civil miscellaneous appeals were filed in this Court under section 104 read with Order 43, Rule 1 (J) of the Code and therefore, by virtue of the provisions of section 104 (2), no further appeal will lie from an order passed in such appeals. Mr. G. Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that Letters Patent is a special law and the Civil procedure Code is a central law and therefore, the special provisions cannot be done away with by resorting to the subsequent central legislation. Mr. G. Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the subsequent rulings of the Supreme Court have not referred to ruling of four Judges'Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohindra Supply Co. AIR 1962 S. C 256.