All the trustees must be before the Court when the question of liability of trust properties is involved.

JUDGMENT - Deshpande S.J. J.:-This second appeal is filed by original plaintiff against the appellate decree passed against respondent No. 4 Trust. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are the trustees of the Trust-respondent No. 4, though they are not described as such.

2. The plaintiff had filed a suit against the Trust initially in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalgaon, being Regular Civil Suit No. 618 of 1972 impleading the Trust as the first defendant and defendant Nos. 2 to 11 as original trustees. The suit was filed to recover an amount of Rs. 2,322 with future interest and costs. The case of the plaintiff was that the first defendant is a Public Trust and he was the employee of this Trust working as a teacher in one of the high schools conducted by the Trust. The plaintiff was appointed as the Head Master for academic year 1969–70 on monthly pay of Rs. 200 as the basic pay and permitted dearness allowance. The total salary of the plaintiff was Rs. 327 per month. It was the case of the plaintiff that he was appointed on June 11, 1969 for a period of one year i. e. from June 11, 1969 to June 10, 1970.

3. It appears that the school was closed within that time after appointment and the defendants did not pay the plaintiff the agreed amount of salary, and therefore, the plaintiff was required to file a suit for recovery of his pay. The plaintiff had, therefore, filed an earlier suit, being Regular Civil Suit No. 529 of 1969 to recover his salary and it appears that suit related to the first six months of academic year 1969–70. That suit came to be decreed and the decree in that suit is on record which shows that the plaintiff's claim to the extent of six months' period was decreed on the basis that the defendant-Trust committed breach of contract.

4. In this suit, which is filed by the plaintiff, the plaintiff says that he was ready and willing to work as Head Master for the whole year but Vidyalaya was closed and the defendant Trust is liable to pay for the remaining six months of the academic year 1969–70.

5. Defendant Trust raised a plea that the suit is barred by the provisions of Order 2, rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in view of the judgment and decree passed in the earlier suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 529 of 1969. It also denied that the Trust had committed any breach of contract and finally contended that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief because he has no cause of action to file the present suit.

6. The learned trial Judge framed as many as seven issues. On consideration of the evidence on record, he held on issue No. 5, which related to the closure of the school, that as on this issue no evidence was given by the defendants, therefore, the contention of the plaintiff was accepted by the trial Judge that the school was not closed and therefore holding the contract continues he held that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed by him. On issue No. 6, which related to the bar under Order 2, rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the learned trial Judge held that the bar is not attracted, because the cause of action for the present suit and the cause of action for the earlier suit are different, holding that the former suit was for recovery of damages of the earlier six months and the present suit is confined to the period from November 12, 1969 to June 11, 1970 and the bar of Order 2 rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not arise. The learned trial Judge was of the view that since the plaintiff's claim relates to the monthly salary in which event monthly salary becomes due per month and as this cause of action is recurring cause of action, he held that the bar of Order 2 rule 2 of the Code cannot be attracted to the present suit. The other issues are not necessary to be taken into consideration. On these principal issues, the trial Judge having held in favour of the plaintiff passed a decree in the sum of Rs. 2,322 plus interest. It is material to note that the decree reads as

Click Here to Read the rest of this document