SHANMUGA DAYANANDAM TRUSTEE VALLAL P. SUBRAMANIA UDYAR CHARITABLE TRUSTS Vs. VALLAL P. SUBRAMANIA UDAYAR CHARITABLE TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the suit is the resolution of the Board of Trustees of the first defendant Trust dated 28. 09. 2013.

(2.) The brief averments in the plaint are as follows:

(3.) According to the plaintiff, he has been discharging his duties as a trustee ever-since his appointment. The plaintiff would claim that defendants 3 to 5, who are appointed as trustees started acting against the welfare of the Trust. It is claimed that defendants 3 to 5, with a personal motive to encourage a private contractor of their own choice, decided to demolish the existing building in which the office of the trust was functioning and put up a new construction through a contractor of their choice. Since, defendants 2 to 5 found that the plaintiff will be a stumbling block to achieve their object of exploiting the funds of the Trust, they have decided to get rid of the plaintiff by hook or crook. It is also claimed that defendants 3 to 5 convened a meeting on 28. 09. 2013, without intimating the agenda of the meeting either to the plaintiff or the second defendant, who is the senior trustee, and passed a resolution removing the plaintiff as a trustee. It is claimed that the resolution removing the plaintiff as a trustee was intimated to the plaintiff subsequently. The plaintiff would claim that removal of a trustee of a Public Charitable Trust cannot be done by a mere resolution of majority of the trustees. It should be by a way of a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Claiming that the resolution dated 28. 09. 2013 is non-est in law, the plaintiff had issued a notice on 01. 10. 2013, defendants 3 to 5 questioning their authority to remove the plaintiff as trustee of the first defendant Trust. He also sought for withdrawal of the resolution dated 28. 09. 201 The defendants 3 to 5 had sent a reply dated 16. 10. 2013, in and by which they rejected the claim of the plaintiff and had stood by the resolution, In the said reply, while admitting that no show cause notice was issued for the removal of the plaintiff, the defendants 3 to 5 had claimed that there was no duty cast on them to follow the procedure for removal of the trustee. It is also claimed that in a subsequent meeting held on 11. 10. 2013, the second defendant was prevented from participating. The attempt made by the second defendant to participate in the meeting with the aid of police was also thwarted by the defendants 3 to 5.