REGEENA JEPPIAR ENGINEERING COLLEGE Vs. JEPPIAAR SHEELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed by the seventh defendant to revoke the leave granted by this Court to institute the suit.

(2.) The main ground of the applicant is that the suit filed by the plaintiff certainly is not in public interest. The plaint averments itself shows that the plaintiff has chosen the suit as a platform to launch herself in the first defendant Trust. Her private and personal interest are the only driving factor for filing the suit. The plaintiff was a Trustee of the first defendant Trust, she having been made a Trustee by Late Dr.Jeppiar, the Founder of the Trust. However, she subsequently resigned from the first defendant Trust, soon after the demise of late Dr.Jeppiar along with the defendants 6, 10 and 11. The third defendant has been elected as a Managing Trustee of the first defendant Trust on 24.06.2016. However, she thereafter engaged in acts and omissions detrimental to the interest of the Trust, compelling us to remove her from the position of Managing Trustee. The 8th and 9th defendants had influenced the third defendant to engage in fabrication of records and documents and executed document titled "Supplementary Trust Deed" dated 20.01.2017, which reads as though the 8th and 9th defendants have been inducted as Trustees into the first defendant Trust. The Trustees of the first defendant, except the third defendant, have been vigilant and have at all times administered the Trust to the best of their abilities. Though she resigned from the first defendant Trust well over a year back, she has now insinuated, though not made any direct mention that her resignation from the first defendant Trust was not voluntary. Only in order to enter into the Trust, with the connivance of the 8th and 9th defendants, she had lodged a police complaint against them.

(3.) It is the contention of the applicant that the suit is not filed in the public interest and on the other hand, she is seeking a back door entry into the Trust as her resignation was accepted and recorded on the same day. Further, the suit is also not maintainable as it is misjoinder of cause of action. The first and the second defendants are completely independent institutions and only commonality is the presence of the third defendant in both the Board of Trusts which cannot by itself amount to bundling of causes of action, more so since the complaints of the plaintiffs concerning the first defendant are entirely different from the allegations of impropriety committed by the defendants 3, 8 and 9 in respect of the second defendant Trust, there is no commonality of cause of action. Hence, prayed for revoking the leave granted to institute the suit in application No.6404 of 2017.