V. Chitambaresh, J. - This is an application to amend the Scheme framed for the administration of 'Sree Narayana Trusts' and notice was taken by paper publication as enjoined under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('C.P.C.'). We heard M/s. R. Rajasekharan Pillai, M. Balagovindan, V.R.K. Kaimal, Advocates in support and Mr. N. Nandakumara Menon, Senior Advocate, M/s. N. Rajan Babu, Sajan Varghese, Advocates in opposition.

2. A Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 8.3.1978 in A.S. Nos. 689 & 813 of 1972 framed a Scheme for a Trust named Sree Narayana Trusts' and Clause 34 thereof is as follows:-

"Any member of the Board of Trustees may move the Honourable High Court of Kerala for appropriate modification of the Scheme or for other directions, if any difficulty arises in the working of the Scheme or if it is found necessary and expedient for the effective functioning of the Trust.

(emphasis supplied)

Such a clause was incorporated after accepting the draft Scheme submitted by the parties when it was noticed that there were certain inadequacies in Ext.D7 Trust Deed warranting alteration. The Scheme framed for the Trust by the court was marked Ext. A1 and appended as part of the judgment itself evident from the following observations therein;

"During the hearing of the appeals, we felt that Ext.D7 has become inadequate to meet the needs of the Trust and serve its interest and that a modified Scheme was necessary. This view was shared by all the counsel appearing in the case and also by defendants 112 and 121, who were present in person, and a draft Scheme signed by counsel and defendant 121 was accordingly submitted in court on 13.1.1978 suitably modifying Ext.D7. This Draft itself was prepared and produced in court after certain earlier proposals made by counsel and the above defendants were discussed in court and in the light of the modifications which were suggested by us. We perused the Draft Scheme, heard further arguments of counsel and parties and we are satisfied that it can be approved and accepted in the best interest of the Trust, particularly in view of Clause (34) which permits any member of the Board of Trustees to move this Court for appropriate modifications of the Scheme or for other directions, if any difficulty arises in the working of the Scheme or if it is found necessary and expedient for the effective functioning of the Trust. We accept that Scheme for the Trust, mark it as Ext. A1 and append it as part of this judgment. That finally disposes of issue No.17."

(emphasis supplied)

Thus Clause 34 of the Scheme enabled any member of the Board of Trustees to make a motion in this Court if it is found necessary and expedient for the effective functioning of the Trust.

3. The above enabling provision for any member of the Board of Trustees was deleted by order dated 31.8.1987 in C.M.P. No. 16895/1987 in A.S. Nos. 689 & 813 of 1972. Clause 34 of the Scheme was trimmed down enabling any member of the Board of Trustees to move this Court only for modification of the Scheme as follows:-

"Any member of the Board of Trustees may move the Honourable High Court of Kerala for appropriate modification of the Scheme."

Any member of the Board of Trustees was thus disabled from making a motion even if there is any difficulty in the working of the Scheme or for the effective functioning of the Trust. The reason for altering Clause 34 of the Scheme as can be found in the order in C.M.P. No. 16895/1997 in A.S. Nos. 689 & 813 of 1972 is as follows:-

"Having regard to the best interests of the Trust, it appears to us wholly unnecessary to enable persons concerned to move this Court for interpreting or clarifying any of its provisions as it is obvious that it is a matter which the authorities functioning under the Trust can do satisfactorily. The existence of Clause 34 in the Scheme enabling any one to seek directions from this Court has unnecessarily led to enormous litigation which is not conducive for the s