BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:
10. 2.2015 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.140 of 2014 1.Imayam Trust Rep. by its Chairman P.Periannan, Kannanur, Thuraiyur Taluk, Trichy District. 2.P.Periannan, S/o.Palaniyandi, Chairman, Imayam Trust, East Street, Nagama Naicken Patty, Thuraiyur Taluk, Trichy District. 3.A.Andy, S/o.Ammasi Kavundar, Vice Chairman, Imayam Trust, No.131/1, Kottaimedu Street, Kottapalayam Village, Thuraiyur Taluk, Trichy District. 4.A.Nagammal, W/o.Ammasi Kavundar, Trustee, Imayam Trust, No.131/1, Kottaimedu Street, Kottapalayam Village, Thuraiyur Taluk, Trichy District. 5.A.Malliga, W/o.Andy, Trustee, Imayam Trust, No.131/1, Kottaimedu Street, Kottapalayam Village, Thuraiyur Taluk, Trichy District. 6.P.Reesa, W/o.Periaannan, Trustee, Imayam Trust, East Street, Nagamma Naicken Patty, Thuraiyur Taluk, Trichy District. 7.P.Sivakumar, S/o.Periannan, Vice Chairman, Imayam Trust, East Street, Nagama Naicken Patty, Kottapalayam Village, Thuraiyur Taluk, Trichy District. ... Petitioners Versus 1.Balakumar 2.P.Natarajan 3.D.Prabhu, S/o.Dharmalingam, Treasurer, Imayam Trust, North Street, Kollappatti Village, Thuraiyur Taluk, Trichy District. ... Respondents This petition is filed under Section 115 of C.P.C. as against the fair and decreetal order dated 6.12.2013 passed in I.A.No.247 of 2013 in O.S.SR.No.463 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli. !For Petitioner : Miss.J.Anandhavalli ^For Respondents : Mr.P.Renganatha Reddy for R2 Mr.C.S.Ravichandran for R3 :
ORDERThis civil revision petition has been filed by the defendants in the proposed suit under Section 92 of C.P.C., for framing a scheme for the administration of the first defendant trust, called ?.Imayam Trust?., Kannanur, Thuraiyur Taluk, Trichy District filed by respondents herein/proposed plaintiffs against the order of granting leave to sue against the petitioners/defendants for framing a scheme in respect of the ?. Imayam Trust ?..
2. Facts in nut shell are as follows: The respondents/plaintiffs in the proposed suit approached the District Court for framing a scheme stating that Imayam Trust namely, first petitioner-trust is a public trust and it is mismanaged; its funds are misappropriated and the trustees are functioning detrimental to the interest of the trust namely committing act of misconduct, misappropriation and misuse of funds and breach of trust contrary to the trust deed dated 18.10.2004. In the proposed suit, leave was sought in I.A.No.247 of 2013 and counter was filed by the first petitioner herein and other defendants except fourth defendant therein and the third respondent herein, contending that it is a public trust, there is no mismanagement, misappropriation, misuse of funds, breach of trust and maladministration of the trust as alleged in the leave application; The respondents and proposed plaintiffs are strangers to the trust thereby they lack locustandi; The District Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings and the Sub-Court alone has got jurisdiction.
3. Based on the rival contentions, the District Court found that: a) The first petitioner is, a public trust (Imayam Trust). b) The respondents herein/plaintiffs have locustandi to file the suit as they have interest in the trust. c) Prima facie allegations of mismanagement, misappropriation of money, breach of trust, and misconduct by the trustees are made out. The said order of granting leave is challenged before this Court by the defendants in the proposed suit.
4. Heard Miss.J.Anandhavalli, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.P.Renganatha Reddy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and others and perused the records.
5. It is an admitted fact that ?. Imayam Trust?., first petitioner herein was created under the trust deed dated 18.10.2004 registered as document No.141/2004 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Uppiliyapuram, Trichy District for the object of up-liftment of the public, especially down trodden people to give education by starting educational institutions. Initially six persons were trustees. By virtue of supplemental deed dated 12.7.2013, subsequently one P.Sivakumar was added as one of the trustees. The second petitioner herein is the Chairman, the 7th petitioner is the Vice Chairman, the third petitioner is the Secretary,the third respondent is the Treasurer and petitioners 4 to 6 are Trustees of the first petitioner. The trust started educational institutions in the name of ?.Imyam College of Engineering?., ?.Imayam college of Information and Technology?., ?.Imayam Polytechnic College?., ?.Imayam Institute of Agriculture and Technology?., ?. Imayam Arts and Science College for Women?., ?.Imayam and Idhayam College of Education (B.Ed.)?., ?.Imayam Teacher Training Institute?. and ?.Imayam Catering College?.. All these Educational institutions are said to be administered by their correspondents nominated from and among the trustees.
6. Respondents 1 and 2 alleged that the Chairman and Secretary, namely second and third petitioners herein for their personal benefits and gain, misused the powers, duties and rights conferred under the trust deed with malafide motives and crores of rupees of the trust have been misappropriated. The allegations in paragraphs 6 to 10 of the plaint are that petitioners herein mismanaged the trust, misused the trust funds for wrongful gain, committed misconduct thereby acting detrimental to the interest of the Trust. Making those allegations, the first and second respondents filed the suit and the petitioners herein denied all the allegations especially contended that Trust is not a Public Trust. However, the District Court granted leave.
7. M.P.No.2 of 2014 The respondents have filed the above petition to receive 1) Photo copy of letter dated 6.03.2006 issued by the Commissioner of Income tax-I Trichy informing Xmayam Trust?. that the Trust is registered as ?.Public Charitable Trust?. under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act 1961. 2) Photocopy of letter dated 6.03.2006 issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Trichy informing Xmayam Trust?. that exemption was granted in respect of donations to the Trust under Section 80G (5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The above documents are sought to be filed to prove that the trust is a public Trust and the documents are public documents and this Court can take judicial note of those documents under Sections 57 and 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, Whereas Miss.J.Anandavalli, counsel for revision petitioner would contend that Order 11 Rule 16 of the C.P.C. is not complied with to produce the document and Section 57 & 54 of evidence are not applicable. That apart, the petitioners/respondents 1 & 2 in the revision petition have not disclosed from which source they got those documents and only the fourth defendant in the suit and the third respondent in the revision should have supplied the documents. 8) A scrutiny of the documents would show that the trust itself sought exemption of donation from income tax describing the trust as ?. public trust ?. and on that basis exemption is granted. Though Miss.J.Anandavalli learned counsel for revision petitioner opposed receiving of the documents, the documents are not denied as false or fabricated. Revision petitioners would give technical reasons only to receive the documents. Irrespective of source of reception of those documents, the documents are not denied and therefore those documents are deemed to have been admitted by them. The very contention that the documents should have been supplied by the third respondent herein and fourth defendant who functioned as Treasurer would prima facie prove the true nature of the documents. Hence, by allowing the petition, the documents are received and this court takes judicial note under Sections 57 and 74 of the evidence Act. Technical approach should be avoided in the matters involving administration of Trust. The received documents make, prima facie, clear that the Trust is a public Trust. Moreover, contrary to their own stand before income tax department,the revision petitioners have taken a contra stand before Civil Court and the contra stand has been taken with false plea about the nature of the Trust. Trust 9. According to first and second respondents, the first petitioner- trust is a public trust whereas according to the petitioners herein, it is not a public trust. Though the respondents 1 and 2 stated in paragraphs 3 and 4 and 11 and 12 of the plaint that the first petitioner-trust is a public trust, in the counter affidavit, the petitioners-herein, merely denied the allegations that the trust is not a public trust. If it is a private trust nothing prevented the petitioners herein from stating so in the counter. It is appropriate to extract the object of the trust as found in the pages 3 and 4 of the trust deed dated 28.10.2004. ?.(1) nehf;ff';fSk; Fwpf;nfhs;fSk; fPH;fz;lit ,t;twf;fl;lisapd; nehf;f';fshFk; kdpj rKjhaj;jpw;F Fwpg;ghf fPH;jl;L kf;fSf;F nrit bra;tnj ,jd; Kf;fpanehf;fk;/ (1) m/ kdpj rKjhaj;jpw;F. mwf;fl;lisapd;. rhh;ghf ft;tpapy; gpd;j';fpa gFjpfsp;y; fy;;tp epWtd';fis /Vw;gLj;jp fy;tp nrit br;a;jy; (muR tpjpfSf;F cl;gl;L) (1) M/ fy;;;;Y{hhp. Cah;epiyg;gs;sp. kUj;Jt gl;la gog;;g[fs;. brtpypah; gapw;rp kUe;jhSeh; gapw;rp. bjhHpw;;;;;;;;fy;tp; epiya';fs; Mfpatw;;iw Vw;gLj;Jjy;. rpwg;ghf elj;Jjy;. (1) ,/ bgz; fy;tpf;F Kf;fpaj;Jtk; mspj;jy;. rKjha tpHpg;g[gdh;;t[ Vw;gl ghLgLjy;/ (1)
(1) x) ,t;ttwf;fl;lis epjpiaa[k;. kw;w bgwg;ggLk; vy;yh brhj;Jfisa[k; ,jd; nehf;f';fisa[k; eltof;iffs; Kjypait epiwntWtjw;fhf cgnahfpj;jy;/@?. From the above, it is very clear that the object of the first petitioner trust is charitable in nature as it is founded to benefit the humanity, particularly the down trodden people for their upliftment in education through its educational institutions in the backward area, to give importance for education of women, to give training and support for socially backward people and to start home for elderly person. As the objects of the Trust are only to benefit general public and not limited to any particular religion, caste, community and region, the first respondent is only a public trust. Moreover, money for the trust is to be raised through donation, as one of the sources.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deoki Nandan vs. Murlidhar reported in AIR1957SC133= MANU/SC/0085/1956 held in paragraph-5 as follows: ?.5. It will be convenient first to consider the principles of law applicable to a determination of the question whether an endowment is public or private, and then to examine, in the light of those principles, the facts found or established. The distinction between a private and a public trust is that whereas in the former, the beneficiaries are specific individuals, in the latter, they are the general public or a class thereof. While in the former the beneficiaries are persons who are ascertained or capable of being ascertained, in the latter they constitute a body which is incapable of ascertainment. The position is thus stated in Lewin on Trusts, Fifteenth Edition, pp.15-16: ?. By public must be understood such as are constituted for the benefit either of the public at large of some considerable portion of it answering a particular description. To this class belong all trusts for charitable purposes, and indeed public trusts and charitable trusts may be considered in general as synonymous expressions. In private trusts the beneficial interest is vested absolutely in one or more individuals who are, or within a certain time may be, definitely ascertained ... vide also the observations of Mitter.J.
In Nabi Shirazi v. Province of Bengal I, L.R. (1942) 1 Cal.
211. Applying the principle, a religious endowment must be held to be private or public, according as the beneficiaries thereunder are specific persons or the general public or sections thereof.?. In R.Venugopals Naidu v. Venkatarayulu Naidu Charities reported in 1989 supp (2) SCC356= AIR1990SC444the Apex Court held that the suit under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code is a suit of special nature for the protection of public rights in the public trusts and charities. The suit is fundamentally on behalf of the entire body of persons who are interested in the trust. It is for the vindication of public rights. Para 9 of 1989 Supp (2) SCC356(Venugopala Naidu v. Venkatarayulu Naidu Charities) is usefully extracted as follows: ?.
9. The legal position which emerges is that a suit under Section 92 of the Code is a suit of a special nature for the protection of public rights in the public trusts and charities. The suit is fundamentally on behalf of the entire body of persons who are interested in the trust. It is for the vindication of public rights. The beneficiaries of the trust, which may consist of public at large, may choose two or more persons amongst themselves for the purpose of filing a suit under Section 92 of the Code and the suit-title in that event would show only their names as plaintiffs. Can we say that the persons whose names are on the suit-title are the only parties to the suit?. The answer would be in the negative. The named plaintiffs being the representatives of the public at large which is interested in the trust all such interested persons would be considered in the eye of law to be parties to the suit. A suit under Section 92 of the Code is thus a representative suit and as such binds not only the parties named in the suit-title but all those who are interested in the trust. It is for that reason that Explanation VI to Section 11 of the Code constructively bars by res judicata the entire body of interested persons from reagitating the matters directly and substantially in issue in an earlier suit under Section 92 of the Code.?. It is observed by this Court in Kumudavalli and another vs. P.N.Purushotham reported in AIR1978Mad 205, that the provision contained under Section 92 of C.P.C. operates as against mismanagement of the public trust and as far as possible so as to offer protection for due and proper management, upkeep and maintenance of public trust. Hence, it is prima facie clear that the first respondent is a public trust. Jurisdiction 11. Though Miss.J.Ananthavalli, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the District Court lacks jurisdiction and the Sub-Court alone has got jurisdiction, as rightly contended by Mr.Renganatha Reddi, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, relying upon Sri Jayaram Educational Trust and others vs. A.G.Syed Mohideen and others reported in (2010) 2 SCC513 which held both the District Court as well as Subordinate Courts, would have concurrent jurisdiction to try the suit without any reference to pecuniary limit and the notification in G.O.Ms.No.727 dated 8.3.1960 has been referred to in paragraph 9 of the above judgement, which is usefully extracted as as follows: ?.
9. By a Notification dated 8-3-1960 issued in exercise of power under Section 92(1) of the Code, in suppression of the Judicial Department Notification No.719 dated 17.10.1910, the Governor of Madras invested all courts of the Subordinate Judges in the State of Madras with jurisdiction under the Code in respect of the suits relating to trusts created for public purposes of a charitable and religious nature.?..
12. In paragraph-12 of the aforesaid judgement, the Apex Court held that Section 92 C.P.C. provides that a suit can be instituted ?.in the principal civil court Original jurisdiction or in any other courts empowered in that behalf by the State Government.?. Then the suit under Section 92 C.P.C. should be filed in the District Court or in the subordinate courts. In view of the aforesaid categorical declaration made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as per Section 92 of the C.P.C., suits can be filed in the District Court or in the subordinate court as per State Government notification G.O.Ms.727 dated 8.3.1960. The judgements of this Court in Annamalai Chettiyar vs. Solailllyappa Chettiar reported in AIR1935Mad 983 and R.Rama Subbarayalu Reddiar v. Rengammal reported in 1962 Mad 450 have been referred to in Sri Jayaram Educational Trust and others vs. A.G.Syed Mohideen and others reported in 2010 2 SC513 Hence this Court confirms the finding of the District Court that the said court has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit under Section 92 of C.P.C. Locus standi 13. It has been argued by Miss.J.Anandhavalli the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that respondents 1 and 2 lack locustandi, as they are no way interested or connected with the Trust, except the allegations in the plaint that they are beneficiaries of the Trust. She relied upon the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vidyodaya Trust vs. Mahan Prasad R and others reported in (2008) 3 MLJ967(SC). On the other hand, Mr.P.Renganatha Reddy, representing the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the trust is a public trust and not a private trust and as the respondents 1 & 2 are members of public and beneficiaries of the trust, they are entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 92 C.P.C. He would point out that the suit filed under Section 92 of Civil Procedure Code is a suit of a special nature for protection of public rights in the public trusts and charities. The suit is fundamentally on behalf of the entire body of the persons and the suit is for vindication of public rights. Since the beneficiaries of the trust are public, the public may choose with two or more persons amongst themselves have to file suit. He relied upon a judgement of the Hon'ble High Court in Shavax A.Laland others vs. Syed Masood Hosain and others reported in AIR1965A.P. 143 and in Kumudavalli and another vs. P.N.Purushotham reported in AIR1978Mad.
205. 14. In paragraph-1 of the plaint as well as in paragraphs-1 and 2 of the affidavit filed by the respondents 1 and 2, the respondents stated they are the beneficiaries and having interest in the petitioner-Trust and they are competent to file the above suit. In paragraph-10 of the judgement, the Trial Court, gave a finding stating that the trust is a public trust and the respondents are having interest in the affairs of the trust and they are the beneficiaries of the Trust. The relevant portion of paragraph 10 of the order is extracted as follows: ?.Since, there is a prima facie averments and allegations and since the petitioners prima facie show that the trust is a public trust and they are having interest in the affairs of the trust and they are the beneficiaries of the trust, necessarily leave is granted for the petitioners to sue defendants.?.
15. As stated above, the trust is, prima facie, proved to be a ?.Public Trust?.intended to benefit the public. Allegations made by the respondents 1 & 2 in the leave petition and plaint are that the trust is not administered by petitioners according to the terms of the trust deed and it is mismanaged. Hence, it is clear that there is a vindication of public right and not private right. The respondents 1 & 2 have got right to approach the Court in the representative capacity, invoking order I Rule 8 of the C.P.C. Assuming that the respondents wrongly invoked order I Rule 8 of the C.P.C. instead of seeking leave under Section 92(1) to file suit under Section 92 of the C.P.C., it would not vitiate the order. It is well settled law that quoting of wrong provision of law is not fatal.
16. A Division Bench of this Court in V.Rajasekaran and another vs. M.Rajendran, Trustees, MGR Memorial Charitable Trust, Chennai reported in (2007) 1 MLJ683held that suit under Section 92 of C.P.C. can be filed by two or more persons and such persons should have the locustandi to file the suit in the sense that they have interest in the trust and such persons should obtain leave of the court. However another earlier Division Bench of this Court in Kumudavalli and another vs. P.N.Purushothama reported in AIR1978Mad 205 held as follows: ?. It is not necessary that a particular person to have an interest under Section 92 C.P.C. should be personally interested or personally affected, by any act done by the administrator of the Trust. If it could be established that they are interested in the proper conduct and proper running of the trust and are involuntarily involved in evincing interest in its being regulated and conducted in accordance with the terms of the trust, it could reasonably said, that such a person has enough of an interest in the trust concerned?..
17. Moreover, granting of leave cannot be revoked as it is supported by the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent herein and the fourth defendant in the suit namely Mr.D.Prabhu. He states that he never signed any cheque or has any control over the day to day administration of the Trust. Paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit filed before this Court by the third respondent herein and the 4th defendants in the suit reads as follows: ?.
6. I submit that though I am the Treasurer of the Ist petitioner Trust I never signed any cheques or have any control over the day today administration of the Trust. I have not misappropriated or misused the funds of the Ist petitoner Trust in collusion with other defendants-Trustees. As serious allegations are made against this respondent, I am entitled to defend myself and place on record the correct facts of the case.?. ( Emphasis supplied ) As per clause-VI of the Trust deed dated 18.10.2004, it is the responsibility of the treasurer to spend money for the trust purposes. The supplemental deed dated 12.7.2013 categorically states that D.Prabhu, the third respondent herein is the treasurer. The above fact makes it clear that the third respondent is the treasurer of the first petitioner-trust and he is not signing any cheques of the trust and he does not have control over the trust. If he is not signing the cheques, it is not understandable as to how and by whom the money is being spent for administration of the first petitioner trust and its educational institutions and some other persons should be signing the cheques. Hence, third respondent herein, who is stated to be removed as as treasurer as stated in the counter affidavit filed by the petitioners before the trial court, has got interest in the Trust. The contention of the third respondent gives support to the allegations made by the respondents 1 and 2 plaintiffs in the above suit filed on 19.08.2013. Therefore, even, if the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit, the third respondent is having interest in the Trust and has got locustandi and he is transposed as third plaintiff in the suit exercising power under Section 151 of the C.P.C.. The trial court is accordingly directed to transpose the third respondent herein as third plaintiff in the suit. Therefore, the suit is maintainable and the leave granted is valid.
18. That apart, the courts have a general ?.parens Patriae?. jurisdiction over the trust of Charitable and religious nature and courts are bound to guard the interest of Trust, as public interest is involved. On the above score also leave has to be necessarily granted.
19. This court accepts the reasons given by the 3rd respondent in paragraph-3 of the counter that in the suit proceedings, he was shown as 4th defendant and that he was only under the bonafide belief that the other trustees, namely, the petitioners herein would take care of the case on his behalf and that they failed to represent on his behalf and that subsequently he came to know that he was set exparte and he was also shown as third respondent in the CRP.
20. The nature of the trust is only for the purpose of serving the human community, particularly the down trodden people for upliftment of education as stated in the object of the Trust deed. As it is prima facie clear that public right is ventilated rather than the personal rights in the suit, the suit under Section 92 C.P.C is maintainable. For that, the allegations made in the plaint should be looked into at the first instance to see that the suit comes within the ambit of Section 92 of C.P.C. as stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swami Parmatmanand Saraswati v. Ramji Tripathi reported in AIR1974SC2141 A close reading of the plaint, prima facie show allegations of misappropriation, breach of Trust, misuse and mismanagement in the Trust. Further paragraphs 6 to 10 of the plaint specifically make out the case to attract Section 92 of C.P.C. A Division Bench of this Court in Nadigar Sangham Charitable Trust vs. S.Murugan Poochi Murugan and others reported in 2012 (6) CTC721held that while granting leave under Section 92 of C.P.C. this Court has to consider the interest of the Trust and Courts should not adopt hyper technical approach, while dealing with the application for granting leave under Section 92 of CP.C. Paragraphs 34 and 35 of the above judgement are extracted as follows: ?.
34. The grant of leave is a mandatory requirement for institution of a Suit under Section 92 of C.P.C. The grant of leave does not essentially involve an adjudicatory process. The Court should look into the averments and allegations in the Plaint to arrive at a prima facie satisfaction that the suit would fall within the ambit of Section 92 of C.P.C. The plaintiffs, who had produced prima facie materials, in the form of Plaint averments, has to demonstrate that the direction of the Court is necessary for the administration of the Trust. It is essentially for the Court to decide by taking a prima facie view of the matter as to whether the the plaintiff has made out a case for grant of leave. The Plaint averments regarding breach of trust would be a primary material in arriving at a conclusion regarding prima facie case to grant leave.
35. The Court has necessarily a duty to protect the interest of the Public Trust. A Public Trust should be administered in a transparent manner. While dealing with an Application for the leave under Section 92, C.P.C., the Court should not adopt a hyper-technical approach. In case the allegations in the Plaint are baseless and calculated to defame the trustees and there are no materials at all to form a prima facie view of the matter, the Court would be justified in refusing to grant leave. There cannot be a hard and fast rule in a case of this nature involving a public charity. In fact the reason for obtaining leave itself is to protect the Trustees from being subjected to unnecessary harassment and to avoid an unwanted litigation involving the Trust. The Plaintiffs in a Suit under Section 92 of C.P.C. is only bringing it to the attention of the Court about the alleged illegality committed by the Trustees in the office and need for removal of such trustees or to frame a comprehensive scheme for the Trust. In case the Court is convinced that the Suit was filed for vindication of public rights technicality would not stand in the way of entertaining the Suit. While granting leave, the Court is only considering certain fundamentals, which are required to be satisfied to certain a Suit under Section 92 C.P.C.?.
21. In Rajagopal v. Balachandran and two others reported in 2002 (2) CTC527 this court held that Courts have a general parens patriae jurisdiction over the trusts of charitable and religious nature and Courts are bound to zealously guard the interest of the Trust, since the question of public interest is also involved. Therefore, the finding of the District Court that prima facie allegations are available that the second and third petitioners herein purchased the lands and constructed buildings without sanction of the Board of Trustees and by creating forged documents and the lands are purchased at exorbitant prices and the funds are swindled by the petitioners herein are to be proved by the respondents 1 and 2 during trial in the suit and not in the initial stage. The serious allegations made in the plaint reveal that there is prima facie averments of breach of trust of the trustees.
22. It has to be noted that the respondents 1 and 2 elaborately gave twenty five (25) instances of misconduct, mismanagement and breach of the trust of he petitioners 2 & 3 in the administrations of first petitioner Trust. However the petitioners only denied the allegations and they have not produced documents which are exclusive in their possession to falsify the serious allegations made and to deny leave. Non-filing of documents in their possession would make the court to be satisfied satisfy with prima facie allegations made by the respondents regarding mismanagement of the first petitioner trust.
23. In the light of the above, it is seen that (1) The first petitioner trust is prima facie a public trust; (2) Prima facie allegations are made out in the affidavit in paras 7 to 12 and more in detailed manner in para 11 of the plaint regarding mismanagement, breach of trust and misappropriation of funds; (3) The suit has been brought only for vindication of public rights. (4) The District Court has jurisdiction; (5) The third respondent is transposed as third plaintiff in the suit. (6) Leave granted to sue under Section 92 C.P.C. is sustainable. Therefore, leave granted by the District Court is sustained. There is no perversity or illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the District Court. CRP fails and the same is dismissed. M.P.No.2 of 2014 is allowed. The trial court is directed to expedite the hearing in pending applications. No.Costs. Consequently the connected M.P.Nos.1,3 and 4 of 2014 are closed. 10 .2.2015 Internet:Yes Index :Yes vk To Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli N.KIRUBAKARAN,J.
vk C.R.P.(MD)(PD)No.140 of 2014 10.2.2015