1977 Supreme(Mad) 378
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T. Ramaprasada Rao and S. Ratnavel Pandian, JJ.
Kumudavalli Ammal alias Kuppammal and another .....Appellant(s)
Versus
P.N. Purushotham .....Respondent(s)
O.S.A. No. 61 of 1974.
Decided On : 16 August 1977
K. Sarvabhauman and K.S. Narayanan, for Appellants.
Action against trustee of public trust maintainable.
Headnote:Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section 92-Allegation of mis-management against trustee of Public Trust running and managing a Higher Secondary School after obtaining sanction of Advocate-General-Held, action against trustee maintainable.
2. Paul, J., who tried the suit, framed the following issues:
1. Whether the suit is not maintainable for any reason?
2. Whether valid sanction has been obtained from the Advocate-General under section 92, Civil Procedure Code?
3. Whether the trust is being mismanaged by the defendant?
4. Whether the grant is suspended on account of mis-management on the part of the defendant?
5. Whether any breach of the wish of the founder of the trust was caused by the defendant?
6. Whether the first plaintiff is entitled to file this suit?
7. To what relief is the plaintiff entitled?
3. On the first issue, the learned Judge found that the suit was not maintainable since in the related circumstances the second plaintiff cannot be said to have the requisite interest to file and prosecute the action. He held that the plaintiffs obtained due sanction ‘from the Advocate-General and are entitled to file the suit. On issues 3, 4 and 5 which covered the main points of controversy between the plaintiffs and the defendant, the learned Judge after an elaborate discussion into the oral and documentary evidence held that the main item of trust, namely, the Nagammal Hindu Higher Elementary School is being mis-managed by the defendant and that the grant by the Government was suspended on account of such mis-management and that the defendant acted against the wishes of the founder. In the end however, the learned Judge observed as follows:-
“In view of my findings on issues Nos. 2 to 5, the plaintiffs would have been entitled to all the reliefs which they have claimed in the plaint