C K SUBRAMANIA MUDALIAR Vs. PARSURAMIER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We feel constrained to interfere with the District Judge's order granting leave for the institution of a suit in the form in which that leave has been given, as it appears that he has not exercised the power conferred on him by Section 18 of Act XX of 1863 in the manner contemplated by that provision of law.

(2.) The allegations are extremely vague and indefinite and the charges 2 to 10 as to breach of trust are no more specific than the respondents accusations. The sums of money kept uninvested in 1 counter-petitioner's hands, or lent to strangers, other sums said to be unaccounted for, the items of temple property dealt with contrary to the interests of the trust are not specified, with the consequence that the suit may be based on charges which have not been clearly made the subject of the order. The giving of sanction against any or all of the respondents, leaving the petitioners to choose which of them they will proceed against, is also improper as it supplies the petitioners with an instrument for extortion and makes it possible for them to let off the persons most responsible and get other members who are less guilty to account severally for the trust property. The Judge's order is, therefore, set aside and he is directed to make a fresh enquiry after calling upon the petitioners to give definite particulars of the charges made by them and after affording the counter-petitioners an opportunity to explain them.

(3.) He may then grant leave to the petitioners to proceed upon any charges which he finds to be prima for established against such of the counter-petitioners who in the opinion of the Judge are to be held responsible.