ORDER: The petitioner and the three respondents are the trustees of Kottur Rangasamy Mudaliar Trust (KRM Trust in short). The first respondent is the Managing Trustee. A scheme decree was passed by the Scheme Court viz., District Court, Tanjore. Thereafter, the trustees who were then on the Board of Trustees filed several appeals for modification of the scheme and by the judgment dated 6.12.1916, the scheme was modified by a Division Bench of this Court. Para 25 of the Scheme Decree as modified by this Court gave liberty to the parties to apply to the District Court, Tanjore for further directions in the future. The petitioner herein filed T.A.No.7 of the 1998 before the Scheme Court to enquire into the facts of commission and omission and to pass such orders and give such directions as are proper and necessary for the better administration of the Trust Estate. This was dismissed by the Scheme Judge namely, the Principal District Judge at Nagapattinam and therefore, this revision has been filed.

2. Pending revision, C.M.P.No.6131 of 2001 was filed by a third party to the petition who was a Judge of this Court and the Karnataka High Court and thereafter, the Vice Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal. In his affidavit filed in support of the petition he has indicated that the objects of the Trust should be fully implemented and the Trust should be preserved. His grievance is that many of the laudable objects of the Trust have been allowed to fall into misuse and he prays that this Court should exercise its parens patriae control over the Trust, and regularise the activities of the Trust so that the intentions of the founder are fully carried out. The affidavit makes it clear that he is not interested in being put in management of the Trust but he seeks to implead himself only as a member of the founder’s family.

3. Mr.T.R.Rajaraman, learned counsel for the third party petitioner reiterated the averments made in the affidavit and prayed that the impleading petition should be ordered. He relied on the decision in Kannan Adityan v. Adityan, (1996)2 L.W. 364 to support the case of impleading petition.

4. Mr.V.K.Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3, who are the respondents 1 and 2 in the main revision strongly opposed the impleading petition. He submitted that the petitioner in this civil miscellaneus petition is not a "person interested". There are references to the Will in the affidavit which are irrelevant because the Scheme framed by the District Judge and modified by this Court would supersede any such testmentary instrument and that this third party also is not necessary for deciding the revision. He also submitted that the affidavit does not bring any specific act of misfeasance and malfeasance and the allegations are very vague. He further referred to the communication sent by the petitioner in the civil miscellaneous petition congratulating the respondents for their good work in managing the Trust and that itself would disprove the allegations of misfeasance. He relied on Ramesh Hirachand Kundammal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others, (1982)2 S.C.C. 524 and Sangamesh Printing Press v. Chief Executive Officer, (1999)6 S.C.C. 44.

5. In Kannan Adityan v. Adityan, (1996)2 L.W. 364, the Division Bench of this Court held that even a person who had not done anything to show his interest in the Trust can still be a person interested.

"...It does not preclude him from initiating proceedings to protect the interests of the Trust as and when he finds that they are in jeopardy and the Trust, is not managed properly".

6. In R.Venugopala Naidu v. Venkatarayulu Naidu Charities, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 444, which was referred to in this case, the Supreme Court held thus:

"The legal position which emerges is that a suit under Sec.92 of the Code is a suit of a special nature for the protection of public rights in the Public Trusts and Charities. The suit is fundamentally on behalf of the entire body of pe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document