The Scheme Court has discretion in appointing trustees based on the Scheme decree, and the court will not interfere unless the exercise of discretion is illegal, unreasonable, or perverse under Sec.115 C.P.C.

These Revision Petitions have been filed against the order dated 22. 2003 of the Scheme Court (Principal Sub Judge Court, Chingleput) on Memo in Scheme O.S.No.27/1940.

2. Heard the respective counsel and also the parties in person.

3. Civil Revision Petition No.977/2003 was filed by Sheik Ansar Basha, alias S.A.Basha, whose application for appointment of trustee of the Covelong Darga was rejected by the Principal Sub-Judge (Scheme Court) on 22. 2003 on memo in Scheme O.S.No.27/1940. He is challenging not only the rejection of his application but also the appointment of respondents 4, 6, 9, 11 and 12 as trustees.

4. C.R.P.NPD.No.1251/2003 was filed by Md.Nooruddin Siddique challenging the very same order of the Scheme Court dated 22. 2003 not only the rejection of his application as a trustee for the same Darga, but also the appointment of the same respondents as trustees as shown in the other C.R.P.NPD.No.977/2003. In effect the petitioners while reiterating that they should have been appointed as trustees, contended that the respondents above, namely, C.Y.Javid Mushtaq Ahmed, Khadar Basha, Md.Shafiul Hussain, M.A.Mohamed Haneef Ghouse and N.Khaleel Ahamed ought not to have been appointed at all.

5. First let me consider why the revision petitioners (CRP.NPD.No.977/2003) application was rejected by the Scheme Court.

.6. The Scheme Court considering the fact that the revision petitioner was born in 1942 and he is an aged man when compared to other persons, rejected his application. The Scheme Court also adverted to the fact that even though he mentioned in the application that he has studied up to E.S.S.L.C., he did not produce any document to prove his qualification.

7. I do not find any illegality in the above findings of Scheme Court while rejecting the petitioners application warranting interference under Sec.115 C.P.C. In a trust matter of this nature while appointing the trustees on the basis of a Scheme decree, some element of discretion is always conferred on the scheme court while appointing the trustees keeping in mind the welfare of the trust and its proper administration. Further in the Scheme decree passed in O.S.No.27/1940 on 112. 1941, the Scheme Court has clearly observed that the court while making appointment of trustees, shall have regard to the candidates status, learning, influence, character and piety which shall be grounds for preference.

8. Whether these grounds are adhered to in the appointment of the five respondents whose appointments were challenged in both the revision petitions, ought to be considered now. Insofar as the appointment of M.A.Md.Haneef Ghouse and N.Kaleel Ahamed are concerned, the major objections seem to be that they are practising lawyers who could not devote much time for the institution.

9. I do not find any merit in the above objection as the practising lawyers would find time for administration of the institution and on that ground their appointment cannot be set aside.

10. Insofar as C.Y.Mushtaq Ahameds appointment is concerned it is assailed on the ground that when he was the President of the Board of Trustees, he misrepresented to the court that on 22. 2001 in I.A.No.72/2001 and called for applications only from the male lineal descendants of the founder. The further allegations against him is that when he was functioning as a trustee from 1996, he failed to deposit 5% of the hundial income and failed to account for the grant of Rs.3,50,000/-obtained by him from the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board.

.11. A counter affidavit was filed by C.Y.Mushtaq Ahmed denying the allegations. He

.raised a preliminary objection for considering the revision petitioners themselves as the revision petitioners did not make any objection within the stipulated time of 15 days before the Scheme Court and having failed to raise any objection at the relevant point of time, they could not be permitted to raise these objections for the first time before this court.

12. I find force in the