V.S. JAYACHANDRAN Vs. P. PADMANABAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike off the plaint filed by the first respondent before the Sub Court, Vellore in O.S. No. 97 of 2017.

(2.) From the perusal of the records, it is seen that the Vellore Veeraswami Mudaliar Trust is a Public Charitable Trust being managed pursuant to a Scheme Decree passed by the Sub Court, Vellore. According to the Scheme, five Trustees shall be elected. One among them shall be the descendant of the Founder of the Trust. The father of the revision petitioner was also appointed as a Trustee by the Court. After his demise, it appears that the revision petitioner has taken over possession of the property belonging to the Trust. On 28/4/2011, the Sub Court, Vellore in I.A. No. 13 of 2008 in I.A. No. 604 of 1993 in O.S. No. 166 of 1949, selected and appointed Trustees to the Vellore Veeraswami Mudaliar Trust. The second respondent was appointed as President and the third respondent as Secretary. Their appointments were challenged by the unselected candidates in CRP (NPD) No. 2143 of 2011. This Court dismissed the same on 28/4/2016, as the petitioners therein had withdrawn the same. During the course of challenge to the appointment of Trustees, this Court appointed Administrators. When the petitioners chosen to withdraw the revision, the Administrators appointed by this Court for the interregnum period was also discharged and liberty was granted to the petitioners therein for filing appropriate applications for appointment of Administrator for the Trust. From the facts, it can be culled out that the present revision petitioner was also one of the unsuccessful candidates for the post of Trustee before the Scheme Court.

(3.) Pursuant to the appointment, the President and Secretary of the said Trust have leased out a shop portion to the first respondent herein for a period of eleven months and it was renewed by them. By virtue of the lease, the first respondent was running the shop. Allegations were made by the first respondent against the revision petitioner that he has attempted to demolish his shop by using manpower. Therefore, he approached the trial Court by way of O.S. No. 97 of 1997 and obtained an order of interim injunction restraining the revision petitioner from interfering with his possession, in I.A. No. 146 of 2017 in O.S. No. 97 of 2017 dtd. 21/3/2017. Pending the suit, the revision petitioner has approached this Court, with the above revision petition.