GOVINDASWAMY NAIDU Vs. UCHAPPA GOUNDAN (DEAD)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The principal points argued in this second appeal are (1) that the suit was not maintainable so tar as it was a suit for a scheme of management of the trust properties after a sceme had been once settled in a (sic) suit which was carried to the High Court in appeal, (2) that in any case the Sub-Court had no jurisdiction to (sic) or alter in any way the scheme which had been embodied in a decree of the District Court and lastly (3) that if any change in the existing scheme was called for, the proper manner for (sic) it would be to move the District Court by petition and not to file a suit in the Subordinate Court. The appellant does not wish to press any objection to any particular details of the scheme bat only to the maintainability of the suit.

(2.) When a scheme drawn up by a Court contains a provision permitting parties or persons interested in the religious instruction to apply to the Court for directions and for modifications to be made in the scheme already existing, as was the case with the scheme that was the subject of the decision in Damodarbhat V/s. Bhogilal Karsondas 24 B. 45 : 1 Bom. L.R. 509 : 12 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 567 I am of opinion that the proper remedy for detects discovered in the original scheme is to apply by petition to the Court that framed the scheme arid not to file a regular suit. Whether Courts have inherent powers to alter schemes without a fresh suit being brought for the purpose when there is no provision for alteration in the scheme is a question that is open to doubt. Sadupadaya Omeshanana Oja V/s. Ravaneswa Prosad Singh 43 Ind. Cas. 772 has been (sic) un authority for that proportion, but it cannot appear clearly whether in (sic) case (sic) a (sic) petition. It is not necessary for us to decide the point, as I am Clearly or opinion that there was no obstacle in the way of the plaintiff instituting in the way of the plaintiffs instituting the present suit.

(3.) The previous litigation regardirg the trust was in Original Suit No. 39 of 1909 on the (sic) of the District Court, Coimbatore. Neither the decree of the District Court nor the decree Of the High Court in appeal contains any provision for the parties applying to the court by petition in future.