MULUKUTLA RAMAMURTHI Vs. CHILLARA BHASKARAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOLLOWING the ruling in Vaithilingam v. Ramalingam Pillai 38 Ind. Cas. 133 : (1917) M.W.N. 550 : 6 L.W. 9, I think the petitioners should be directed to be made party defendants.

(2.) THEY allege that they are trustees and there is nothing prima facie to show that they are not. Their rights as trustees would be lost bey the framing of the scheme: see Rama Das v. Hanumantha Row 12 Ind. Cas 449 : 36 M. 364 : 21 M.L.J. 952 : 10 M.L.T. 356 : (1911) 2 M.W.N. 387 and, that being so, I think they should be heard before the Court takes any action to their prejudice No doubt the Subordinate Judge says that their application is not bona fide. It is not clear what this means or on what it is based. The defendant support the claim of the petitioners to the trusteeship. I cannot taken this observation as meaning that the petitioners are putting forward a totally unfounded claim to trusteeship. If that is what is meant, it is unsupported by any evidence. I must, therefore, set side the order of the Subordinate Judge and direct him to add petitioners as party defendants and proceed with the trial of the suit in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs in this petition.