Kailasam, CJ.- The eighth defendant in C.S. No. 29 of 1956 on the file of this Court is the appellant before us. One Rao Bahadur A. K. D. Dharma Raja since deceased, founded a trust, called the Dharma Raja Educational Charity Trust, Rajapalayam. There were disputes in the working of the trust and the matter came up before this Court and a scheme was settled in C.S. No.29 of 1956. The purport of the scheme was that each of the sons of the founder A.K.D. Dharma Raja, was to manage the trust for three years successively. Clause 3 of the scheme provided that the trustee-manager shall be nominated by the District Judge of Ramanathapuram from among the male members of the founder’s family according to seniority and the right of each of the five sons of the founder and the male members of each branch to hold the office for a period of three years in rotation by turns, unless disqualified. Regarding the actual management, clause 23 provided that the trustee-manager would be entitled to nominate a deputy to act for him under deed for a limited period of three months at a time, that, if he could not act as a trustee beyond that period, he should be deemed to have vacated his office unless he registered (resigned ?) the office by a letter and that such nomination of a deputy could take place only twice during his period of office of three years. One other clause that needs to be referred to in this connection is clause 30, which runs as follows:

"Any of the five trustees will be at liberty to apply to the District Judge of Ramanathapuram for any directions in regard to any matter of difficulty experienced by the trustees in the working of the scheme or in regard to the correct interpretation of any provisions of the scheme and the District Judge of Ramanathapuram shall have to give all such directions for the proper and efficient working of this scheme.

2. The application out of which this appeal arises was taken out by the eighth defendant in the suit praying for modifying the earlier portion of clause 23 of the scheme decree by substituting the following clause (viz.),

" If any of his sons or his heirs during his turn, finds it inconvenient to be turstee-manager, then he can after advance notice to the trustee-manager then in office nominate as his deputy for any period during his turn, any of his major male decendants or any major male member in the founder’s family to be trustee-manager in his place without prejudice to such nominee’s rights for his usual turn in the cycle."

in the place of clause 23 commencing from the words "The trustee-manager will be entitled to nominate a deputy to act" and ending with the words, "such nomination of a deputy can take place only twice during his period of office of three years."

3. The relief claimed, in short, is that instead of clause 23 of the scheme decree which provides that the trustee-manager will be entitled to nominate a deputy to act for him under a deed for a limited period of. three months at a time and a total period of six months during his office of three years, the appellant herein wants his right to nominate his deputy for the entire period of three years out of his male descendants or from the male members of the founder’s family. The effect will be to achieve something which is prohibited under clause 23 of the scheme decree. The question that arises for consideration is whether the scheme decree can be modified as prayed for.

4. The general law as set forth in Order 20, rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that, where a judgment has been pronounced and signed by the Judge, it shall not afterwards be altered or added to save as provided by section 152 or on review. We are not now concerned with section 152 or an application for review. So far as this absolute prohibition for modification of a decree is concerned. Some exceptions have been followed in practice. Regarding a decree passed under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure admittedly there has been a practice to include

Click Here to Read the rest of this document