Petition for permission to sale trust property not maintainable.

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the fair and decretal order dated 3.9.2003 made in Trust O.P.No.1 of 1990 by the Court of Principal District Judge, Tiruchirapalli seeking to set aside the same on certain grounds that the Court below failed to see that the lands in question regarding which a Trust Settlement Deed had been executed by the father of the petitioners have been lying waste without income and hence the intention of the executor of the settlement cannot be implemented in any way consequent to which the petitioners are unable to perform 'uthsavams' as directed by their father; that the H.R.&C.E. Board will not get any vested right and cannot object for the sale of the immovable property as the Trust created is not a public charitable trust; that the lands in question cannot generate any income in the present condition since irrigation facility is not available; that the petitioners are giving undertaking to deposit the sale proceeds in the name of the Trust for the purpose mentioned in the Trust Settlement deed; that the proposed sale is only to fulfil the intention of the testator. On such and other minor grounds, the petitioners have come forward to pray to the relief extracted supra setting aside the fair and decretal order passed by the Court below.

2. In consideration of the facts pleaded, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, what comes to be seen is that the property described in the schedule to the petition filed below originally belonged to the father of the petitioners by name Ayyavu Pillai @ Laxman Pillai and by a document dated 1.3.1957, he executed a trust settlement deed in and by which he dedicated the schedule property for charitable purpose along with some other properties that were not subject matter of the petition; that in the Trust-cum-settlement deed, he had nominated himself as the trustee and after his lifetime, appointing the petitioners to continue as the trustees; that the founder trustee, the father of the petitioners, is no more and as per the Trust-cum-settlement deed, the petitioners are the present trustees and in these circumstances, the petitioners on ground that the property is not yielding any income and the adjacent properties have become house sites and that if some arrangement is not there to dispose it of, it would be trespassed by the land-grabbers and if the same is disposed of, it would fetch a good amount as the sale price which will be beneficial for the trust and the intention of the vendor of the Trust could very well be fulfilled, had come forward to file the above application before the lower Court.

3. The lower Court, having traced the facts and circumstances of the case as pleaded by the petitioners, would also trace the objections raised by the objectors to the effect that the Trust was created by the founder trustee dedicating the petition mentioned property along with other property for the performance of charity and special endowment in certain temples which are under the control of the H.R&C.E. administration; that the allegation that the petition mentioned property has become incapable of cultivation is not correct; that the property having been leased out and income by way of lease amount and other such particulars have not been mentioned in the petition and the petition itself is outside the scope of statutory provision contemplated under Col.8 of the Trust Deed; that the allegations that if the property is sold will be beneficial to the Trust and the intention of the founder could be fulfilled are false; that it has been specifically drafted under Col.8 of the Trust Deed that the property should not be alienated at any cost and even if any alienation is made by the trustees, it will not bind the Trust; that the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the Court has no power to grant permission to the trustee to sell the properties when there is an express provision in