SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1985 Supreme(Kar) 133

Karnataka High Court
L.Shivalingaiah - Appellant
Versus
Ananda Social and Education Trust - Respondent
Decided On : 03-28-85
M.F.A. : 188 of 1985

Advocates:
S.C.JAWALI, S.S.Joshi

Headnote:

Trust - Suit Maintainability - Trust Deed, Trustee Authority - [TRUST] - [EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION] - [Societies Registration Act, Income Tax Act, Trusts Act] - The court discussed the maintainability of a suit brought by two trustees on behalf of the trust against other trustees. The court found that the suit was not maintainable as it should have been brought by all trustees jointly. The court also considered the applicability of Section 34 of the Trusts Act and concluded that the suit did not fall within its scope. The court set aside the injunction granted in favor of the plaintiffs.

Fact of the Case:

The suit was brought by two trustees on behalf of the trust against other trustees, seeking to prevent the appointment of a principal and to manage the trust's affairs against the will of the other trustees. The court found that the suit was not maintainable as it should have been brought by all trustees jointly. The court also considered the applicability of Section 34 of the Trusts Act and concluded that the suit did not fall within its scope. The court set aside the injunction granted in favor of the plaintiffs.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the suit brought by two trustees on behalf of the trust against other trustees was not maintainable. The court also concluded that the suit did not fall within the scope of Section 34 of the Trusts Act. As a result, the injunction granted in favor of the plaintiffs was set aside.

Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the suit brought by two trustees on behalf of the trust against other trustees. Additionally, the court considered the applicability of Section 34 of the Trusts Act to the suit.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit was not maintainable as it should have been brought by all trustees jointly. The court also concluded that the suit did not fall within the scope of Section 34 of the Trusts Act. Therefore, the injunction granted in favor of the plaintiffs was set aside.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of injunction, and held that the suit brought by two trustees on behalf of the trust against other trustees was not maintainable. No costs were awarded.

MURLIDHER RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE facts to be narrated in this appeal reveal the sorry state of affairs and the unfortunate events that have been created by the promoters of education who started institution with a laudable object in the name of a great personality of this Country.

( 2 ) THIS appeal is by the defendants in O. S. No. 4130 of 1984, on the file of the 15th Additional City Civil Judge, bangalore City. The plaintiffs in this suit had, on earlier occasion, filed O. S. Nos. 3028 of 1984 and 3707 of 1984. Those suits arc pending. In O. S. No. 3028 of 1984, an interim injunction was granted on 29-8-1984, which is the subject matter of another appeal. There is no interim order in O. S. No. 3707 of 1984. The facts which are necessary to appreciate the points in dispute are as follows : defendants 1 to 9 are the appellants in this appeal and the respondents are plaintiffs ; the defendants and plaintiffs in the suit along with others, formed a society which was registered under the societies Registration Act, with the object of opening an educational institution, orphanage etc, for weaker section of the society including the other classes also. Thereafter, since the Government of Karnataka agreed to allot 25 acres of land, nine persons of the earlier Society formed a Trust called 'ananda Social and Educational Trust' (hereinafter referred to as the Trust ). A trust deed was registered on 10-1-1980. The trust started its functions and thereafter in course of time, opened a medical College called Dr. Ambedkar Medical College (hereinafter referred to as the Medical college ). Dr. N. T. Mohan who was one of the trustees of the Trust has been appointed as a Principal of the Medical college. Things went on smoothly for nearly four years. Thereafter differences arose between the trustees resulting in cob web of litigation. The first of such litigation was in W. P. No. 13102 of 1984 filed by Shivaswamy. The petitioner therein is the second plaintiff in the present suit. His prayer in the said writ petition was questioning the appointment of Dr. N. T. Mohan as the principal of the Medical College. The petitioner sought for an interim relief which was earlier granted. On an application for vacating, the Court made the following observation : "on the facts placed before me, I am satisfied that he does not have the required authority. In that view ofthe matter, it would be unjust to continue the interim order on the technical plea that he as an individual citizen in public interest to prosecute this writ petition. No doubt, several authorities have been cited before me in regard to this aspect of the case. I cannot accede to some of those authorities though I am bound by them as the facts of this case do not lend themselves in support of those cases. None of them support that this Court in its discretion should continue the stay when there is apparent lack of authority in the person who has moved this Court in using the names of institutions which do not appear to support his stand, in this court. For this reason alone, the stay granted earlier is vacated leaving all questions open to be decided either in this writ petition or in some other appropriate proceedings, if the court comes to the conclusion that the petition is not maintainable". The decision in the above writ petition was rendered on 23-8-1984. There after O. S. 3028 of 1984 was filed to declare that the original of the alleged supplementary Trust Deed registered on or about 20-6-1984, as invalid and unauthorised. It was also prayed that the 8th defendant in that suit has no right to interfere in any manner whatsoever with the affairs of the first plaintiff-Trust and the third defendant. It was also prayed that the first defendant should not use the name of the institution. This suit was filed by the Trust represented by dr. N. T. Mohan and three others and the governing council of the Medical college was added as plaintiff-2 and the medical College was also added as plaintiff T
































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top