Govinda Menon, J.-I.A. No. 275 of 1953 was an application in O.S. No. 41 of 1953 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ramanathapuram at Mathurai in which the plaintiffs prayed for an injunction under Order 39, rules 1 and 2 and section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure restraining the fifth defendant from doing anything interfering with the status quo of the Trust Committee and its constitution described in the plaint, pending disposal of the suit, subject to his right to become trustee-manager for three years by devolution.

The learned Subordinate Judge held that for the purpose of preserving the status quo and for maintaining the balance of convenience, the fifth defendant should be restrained by means of an interim injunction pending disposal of the suit from interfering with the status quo of the trust committee and its constitution without prejudice to his rights to become the trustee-manager for a period of three years, consequent on the death of his father and hence this appeal.

The first defendant in the suit who is since dead along with defendants 5 to 8 and the second plaintiff constituted a joint Hindu family of affluent people in Rajapalayam. The first plaintiff who now holds the position of the Governor of Orissa State is a very near relation of the parties. Defendant No. 2 is the chairman of the Municipal Council, Rajapalayam. The third defendant is the District Collector, Ramanathapuram, while the fourth defendant is a respectable gentleman of the locality in whom the members of the family have great confidence.

In 1932 under Exhibit A-1 the first defendant, who was then the head and manager of the joint family constituted a trust known as the Dharma Raja Education Charity Trust, Rajapalayam, for conducting certain schools and other places of learning. For this, certain properties were set apart one of which was a shandy the collections from which have to be utilised for the maintenance of schools and other educational institutions.

The document provided for a line of trustees and committee of management. This is attested by all his five sons and it was intended to be a family trust. It is not necessary to describe in detail the devolution of management and how the trust has to be carried out. It also provided that the first defendant as the founder of the trust had power to make changes from time to time and also amendments with regard to the conduct and management of the trust by means of documents as are necessary to effectively carry out the objects and intentions of the trustees. While the matters were in that state, in 1935 there was another trust-deed, Exhibit A-2 by which certain alterations were made in Exhibit A-1 and the later document was to be read as part of the earlier one. In 1938 by Exhibit A-3 there were further changes made in the mode of conduct of the trust and the personnel of the trustees and committees. There was a family partition in 1939 by which each of the members got his share separated. In 1943 another trust-deed, Exhibit A-4, was executed by which there were further alterations in the constitution of the committee and as to how the management was to be carried on. It was provided that the first defendant should be the trustee-manager during his lifetime. After his death each of his sons in the order of seniority shall be the trustee-manager in turn for a period of three years. Provision was also made that in case any one of the sons died the grandsons should step into the place of the sons and so on and so forth.

On the 6th of September, 1939, the father and the sons as already stated effected a partition of the joint family properties among themselves and under this document the sons accepted and ratified the earlier trust deeds, the result of such ratification being that any doubt which had arisen with regard to the competency of the first defendant as manager of the family to found the trust out of the joint family properties was cleared up. In that partition deed there was a cl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document