The main legal point established in the judgment is that for the administration of a Trust under S. 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, the plaintiffs must establish their interest in the Trust and obtain leave of the Court before instituting a suit. The judgment emphasized the necessity for clear averments establishing the interest of the plaintiffs in the Trust and highlighted that the defect of not impleading the Trust as a necessary party goes to the root of the matter and cannot be cured after obtaining leave.

ORDER :- Application No. 3081 of 2002 is filed by the second defendant to revoke the Order dated 27-2-2002 passed in Application No. 567 of 2002 granting leave to the plaintiffs to institute the suit under S. 92 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Application No. 3668 of 2002 is filed by the plaintiffs to implead "John De Monte Trust" represented by its Trustee, Archbishop's House, 21 Santhome High Road, Chennai-4, as 10th defendant in the suit.

2. The case in brief for disposal of all the applications is as follows :- The plaintiffs filed an application No. 567 of 2002 and obtained leave to institute a suit against the defendants under S. 92 of Civil Procedure Code on 27-2-2002. The leave granted under S. 92 of Civil Procedure Code is liable to be revoked. The suit itself ought not to have been numbered by the Registry on the ground that the Trust is not a party to the proceedings and others are added as parties in their individual capacity. The Scheme Decree is sought for by the plaintiffs, wherein the Trust is not made a party. The initial defect goes to the root of the matter and the plaint should be rejected under O. VII, R. 11 of Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The plaintiffs are not persons interested in the suit Trust and they cannot maintain the suit under S. 92, C. P. C. The plaintiffs are said to be eminent persons in the society but does not state as to how they are persons interested in so far as the present Trust is concerned. The mandatory requirements stipulated under S. 92, C. P. C. is not satisfied. The plaintiffs have instituted the suit against various persons just to tarnish the image of the Catholic Church. Even otherwise no case has been made out to sustain the suit under S. 92, C. P. C. The power of the Trust to lease the property cannot be questioned. The 1st defendant had instituted O. P. 219 and 220 of 2002 for identical purpose seeking permission to lease out the property. Vast extent of property measuring about 390 grounds is utilized to run the Stella Maris College, which is serving the public as a premier institute of excellence in Arts and Science. Portion of the property known as 'D' Monte Colony' which was leased to Hachbridge, Hewittic and Easun Limited and after the Company ran into financial constraints, major portion of the property is being repossessed. The BENS Garden which was originally leased out to Parry and Co., after surrender of the major portion, is now being proposed to be utilized for running a Hospital, Holy land project and for running educational institutions. A portion of the property, which is outside the City of Chennai, is utilized to house the aged, orphans and a church. The entire income is subject to audit. The apprehension raised by the plaintiffs as if the property is going to be sold, is ill-founded. It is admitted that the first plaintiff participated in various meetings. He tendered his resignation on 21-3-2000, which was accepted. The actual motive and grievance of the first plaintiff is that he wants the properties to be given to Church related organization involved in charitable and developmental activities on rent and not to the 7th defendant. This cannot constitute a ground to allege mismanagement and institute the suit under S. 92, C. P. C. It is a personal grievance and nothing more. The actions are bona fide and it is transparent. The Court is the guardian of all the Religious and Charitable Trusts. Defendants 8 and 9 have filed an affidavit stating that the procedure followed is correct and proper. The properties are being preserved and utilized for the benefit of the Trust. The plaintiffs are mere inter-meddlers and have instituted the suit as their minority view has not been accepted. The plaintiffs have instituted the suit to prevent the next legal step of obtaining approval from this Court to lease out the property. The balance of convenience is in favour of revoking the leave already granted.

3. The plaintiffs filed Application No. 3668 of 2002 that they have mad

Click Here to Read the rest of this document