A compromise of a suit relating to a public trust without the consent of the Advocate General and without scrutiny by the court as to whether it is in the interests of the trust is not binding on the public.

ORDER :- This appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, in I. A. 451 of 1961 in O. S. 19 of 1961 allowing the petition for recording the compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3 C.P.C. The appellants filed O. S. 19 of 1961 for framing a proper scheme for the better management or the High School founded by Meenakshi Animal, the 1st appellant, in Chinnamannoor and for utilising the surplus funds by applying the doctrine of Cypres for maintaining the said educational institution and for some other reliefs. The appellants fifed the above suit after obtaining the sanction of the Advocate General under S. 92 C.P.C. since the suit related to a public trust, namely, High School.

2. The suit properties originally belonged to one Krishna Iyer the father of the 1st appellant. The 1st appellant is the only daughter of the said Krishna Iyer. During his lifetime, on 25-1-1930, Krishna Iyer executed a settlement deed In favour of the first appellant settling all his properties on her. She was also put in possession of the properties even during his lifetime. But it was the desire of the Settlor that all the income from the properties should be spent on educational and religious purpose. In order to carry out the desire of her father, the first appellant attempted to maintain a Veda Sastra Padasala at Madurai, but she failed in her attempts, since' sufficient boys were not forthcoming to receive their Vedic education. Therefore, she removed the Veda Sastra Padasala to Chinnamanoor, her native place. It was found that a sum of Rs. 3000 out of the income from the immoveable properties settled on the first appellant, was sufficient for the maintenance of this Veda Sastra Padasala. In order to utilise the surplus income and also in order to carry out the noble intentions of her father, the first appellant started a High School at Chinnamanoor in the year 1952, for giving education to the boys and girls of that village. On 5-5-1951, the first appellant executed a settlement deed providing for the conduct of the Veda Padasala and in addition creating a charge over the properties for the conduct of a High School in Chinnamanoor. She also sought the co-operation of the local public by creating a general body and an executive committee from out of it among the villagers and necessary rules and by-laws were framed for the administration of the High School. M. Malachami, the third respondent was appointed correspondent of the school and he was virtually in management and administration of the school. The present strength of the boys and girls is 750. There are about 30 teaching staff and 5 clerical staff. The majority of the teaching staff are L. Ts. and B. Ts. Thus the High School in Chinamanoor has become very popular as it is imparting education to the students in and around that village. But unfortunately various forces began to work against the first appellant who is the founder of this institution, by moving the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board complaining the diversion of the income for purposes other than the Veda Sastra Padasala quite against the desire of the original settlor. In the meantime the first appellant tiled a writ petition in this court and obtained interim stay. The writ petition is still pending. Differences arose between the third respondent and the appellants in regard to the management of the institution. The present suit is to overcome the difficulty in the actual running of the day-to-day administration of the school, the objections of some of the persons working against the institution and for permission to apply the doctrine of Cypres for diversion of funds to maintain the school and also to frame a proper scheme for the efficient management and administration of the school, In her plaint the first appellant made serious allegations of malfeasance and misfeasance such as interference with duties of the Headmaster, misusing the funds of the institution, against the 3r