A suit for the administration of a trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature is barred under Section 92 of the CPC if the plaintiff has not obtained the leave of the Court before filing the suit.

1. This appeal is against the judgment passed by II Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai in O.S. No. 593 of 1981.

2. The Plaintiff is the appellant. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:

The Plaintiff and third defendant N.K. Kuppian are the Trustees of “Srimathi Sakuntala Ammal Estate Trust”. The Plaintiff is the Managing Trustee and third defendant is another Trustee who is an Ex-Officio Trustee. The second defendant was the second trustee. The affairs of “Srimathi Sakuntala Ammal Estate Trust” is thus managed by three Trustees.

3. Late Sakuntala Ammal, wife of Puliyadi S. Rajaramaier, executed a Deed of Trust and Settlement dated 11.3.1940, under which the appointed three Trustees are:

a. Puliyadi N.R. Sundararamaier b. K.N.Sr.K. Lankaramaier c. The President of the Sourashtra High School Council Ex-Officio.

The three trustees were vested with all the properties and money in the Trust with a direction to administer and manage them; realise all the rent, profits and income and invest and improve the same as they think best; to pay her Rs. 75-00 for maintenance of herself, and her children; Trustees shall endow and devote all the properties that remain at the time of her death. The plaintiffs father P.N.R. Sundara Ramaier, who was the first trustee shall keep and maintain a true and correct account of the Estate. After her death, the first and second trustees then in possession and management shall have the right severally to nominate each his successor. The items of charities to be performed are set out in the Deed as follows:

a. To provide sufficient space for the residence of pregnant ladies after delivery;

b. To distribute dhoties, towels etc. to poor Saurashtra Students studying in Saurashtra High School:

c. To Provide scholarship to those studying for Doctor, Engineer, Spinning and Weaving, dyeing courses or the Trustees were empowered to spend regarding Education as they think fit.

So, as per Trust deed dated 11.3.1940 income from the Trust properties have to be utilised for the purposes of Education mainly. The deed is a Registered one and it was acted upon.

4. Sakuntala Ammal died in or about 19.11.1946. After her death the then Trustees without duly giving effect to the intentions of the Donor and contrary to the express desire expressed by the Donor in the deed dated 11.3.1940, the Ist Trustee & Managing Trustee, namely the plaintiffs father and father of the defendants 1 and 2 and then President of the Sourashtra High School Sri N.M.R. Krishnamoorthy brought into existence a deed of declaration of Trust dated 5.12.1963 creating new items of charities to be performed from out of the income of the Trust properties namely;-

i) To convert the building in Manjanakara Street, Madurai as a Marriage Hall;

ii) Income from the other property has to be utilised for meeting the Marriage Hall;

iii) To perform Samaradhanai at an expense of Rs. 400.00 on the death Anniversary of Sakuntala Ammal;

iv) To manage the property every 3 years either by the father of the defendants 1 and 2 or by the plaintiffs father-Turn system.

v) Trustee to nominate his successor;

vi) To put up construction over Manjanakara Street House.

5. Thus by this deed the Trustee deviated and brought into existence new items of charities which were never intended by the founder Sakuntala Ammal. She never intended that a sum of Rs. 400/-to be spent on Anniversary day of her death. She never intended separate management of the Trust properties for a period of 3 years in Turn Trustees System. The deed dated 5.12.63 is thus a new one. The Trustees have no power to bring into existence a new deed. The deed dated 5.12.1963 is therefore not valid and binding upon the Trust and is not an operative document. Sakuntala Ammal Estate Trust has to be administered only by the terms of the Trust deed dated 11.3.1940.

6. In pursuance of the wishes of the donor in the 1940 deed the plaintiffs father P.N.R. Sundararamaier nominated the plaintiff as his successor by his