DEVIREDDY SULOCHANAMMA Vs. REBALA PATTABHIRAMIREDDY CHARITIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .Aggrieved by the order dated 19-1-2004 passed in O.P. No.468 of 1998 on the file of District Judge, Nellore, R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-6 therein have filed this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. R-1 to R-4 herein are the petitioners/plaintiffs in O.P. No.468 of 1998. They filed the suit as an indigent person against the petitioners and R-5 to R-12 herein seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) . Brief facts essential for the purpose of disposal of this Civil Revision Petition are as follows: Rebala Sujathamma is the wife of Rebala Pattabhirami Reddy. Rebala Sujathamma succeeded to her husband Rebala Pattabihrami Reddy. Rebala Sujathamma, after the death of her husband, brought her sister C.K. Subhaprada, who was working as Assistant Director of Fisheries, Madras, to assist her in managing the estate of Rebala Pattabhirami Reddy. Smt. Sujathamma executed a registered Will dated 22-10-1962 bequeathing all her properties to her sister C.K. Subhaprada. C.K. Subhaprada also executed a Will dated 21-12-1960 bequeathing her properties to her sister R. Sujathamma. C.K. Subhaprada created a trust by name Rebala Pattabhirami Reddy Charities under a trust dated 12-1-1994 to advance religious and charitable objects of public utility and gifted a sum of Rs.1,116-00 to form nucleus of the said Trust. Smt. Rebala Sujathamma executed a codicil on 24-1-1994 as an amendment to the Will dated 22-10-1962 whereby she introduced a clause in the Will that in case of C.K. Subhaprada pre-deceasing her, the entire property should absolutely go to Charities created by C.K. Subhaprada. C.K. Subhaprada pre-deceased Rebala Sujathamma, who died on 4-6-1995. Disputes cropped up with regard to estate of Smt. Rebala Sujathamma after her death. Therefore, O.P. Nos.151 to 155 of 1996 came to be filed on the file of District Judge, Nellore for granting of succession certificate. After due enquiry all the OPs came to be disposed of by a common order directing the parties to approach the Civil Court for appropriate reliefs. Hence, Rebala Pattabhirami Reddy Charities represented by its Trustees filed suit for the reliefs stated supra and also sought for permission to sue as indigent person. The defendants filed counter resisting the claim of the plaintiffs and questioning the very maintainability of the suit. During the pendency of the enquiry, D-8 died and therefore I.A. No.769 of 2003 came to be filed for brining the L.Rs. of D-8 on record. The said application came to be allowed on 31 -7-2003. The plaintiff filed I.A. No. 1065 of 2001 seeking impleadment of Katamreddy Subba Reddy, Magunta Sreenivasulu Reddy and Agastya Reddy Venku Reddy as plaintiffs/petitioners 2 to 4. They also filed I.A. No.1447 of 2001 to bring on record L.Rs. of Bejawada Ankamma as defendants. Both the applications came to be allowed on 17-11-2001 by the learned District Judge, Nellore. The defendants 1 to 3 and 6 filed C.R.P. Nos.980, 981,1155 and 1688 of 2002 assailing the orders passed in I.A. No. 1065, 1447 and 1448 of 2001 and memo in C.F. No.2686 of 2000. All the revisions came to be dismissed by an order dated 15-9-2002. I deem it appropriate to refer the relevant portion of the order and it reads as under:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the plaintiff-trust suffers from lack of essential requirement i.e., trust money and therefore there is no trust in the eye of law as on 12-1 -1994 and thus the suit filed by the trust represented by its trustees is not maintainable. What he means to say is that the trust money of Rs.1,116/- is so nominal and paltry to be properly termed as trust money. He further submits that there is no cause of action for the trust to file the suit. His last submission is that plaintiffs 2 to 4 are not at all the trustees of the 1 st plaintiff trust and therefore they have no right to sue the defendants for recovery of the alleged trust property. It is also submitted by him that the trustees are expected to incur expenses in the matter of realizing the trust property and therefore the question of permitting them to file suit as indigent person arises only in case of they too have no means to pay the Court fees. In support of his submissions he placed reliance on the decision of Privy Council in Bombay Govt. v. Pestonji Ardeshir and Duli Chand v. M/s. M.P.T.C. Charitable Trust. In the first cited decision, it has been held that there is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure enabling the trustees to sue in the name of trust, as members of the firm may sue in the name of the firm and that in case of a trust, the plaintiffs are bound to be trustees and not the trust. In the second cited decision it has been held that a suit by one of the co- trustees on the basis of a resolution passed unanimously by all other co-trustees authorizing that trustee to file the suit would not be maintainable. The position of trustees is exactly the same as of any other set of coowners who must necessarily joint together to file a suit.