The court established that the Scheme Court had the power to remove a trustee and that the Managing Trustee's actions constituted misfeasance and malfeasance, justifying his disqualification.

1. The minimal facts necessary to dispose of this Civil revision Petition are as follows:—

The property viz., the Thottams comprised in S. Nos. 2373 and 2376, Nagore, belongs to the Nagore Dargah. The administration of the said Dargah vests with Board of Trustee appointed under the scheme Decree passed in O.S. No. 30 of 1946, as modified by the High Court, in A.S. Nos. 289 and 576 of 1948. The Board of Trustees resolved to lease out the said property to the Nagore Educational Trust, on a monthly rent of Rs. 2,000/- for a period of 99 years. On the basis of the said resolution dated 24.7.1997, the Managing Trustee of the Dargah N.S. Syed Abul Fatah Sahib moved the Scheme Court, East Thanjore at Nagapattinam for sanction and approval. But the District Judge viz., the Scheme Court by its order dated 2.9.1997, rejected the request, stating as follows:—

“The request for permanent leasing rejected since there is no provision in the Scheme Decree for granting permission to such lease or to lease property by negotiation without conducting any public auction.”

In spite of the order passed by the Scheme Court dated 2.9.97, and which order was communicated to the Managing trustee on 3.9.97, the Managing Trustee entered into a lease transaction with the said Nagore Educational Trust and get the lease deed registered on 10.9.97. One Saha Syed Sahib, a member of the Advisory Board of Nagore Dargah made a complaint on 27.4.1998, alleging that the proposed lease is a collusive transaction and the same is detrimental to the interest of the trust. On receiving the said complaint, the Scheme Court called for explanation of the same from the Managing Trustee and also required him to produce the lease deed for further action. The Scheme Court, thereafter, held that the lease is null and void and that it is a collusive transaction. Further, it directed the Dargha to take immediate possession of the property from the Nagore Educational Trust. Aggrieved by the said Order, the Managing Trustee of Nagore Dargah Thiru. Syed Abul Fatah Sahib preferred a Revision before this Court in C.R.P. No. 1897/98. The lessee viz., the Nagore Educational Trust also preferred a Revision in C.R.P. No. 2113 of 1998. Both the cases were heard by a Single Judge of this Court, who dismissed both the Revisions with costs. In the course of his Judgment, S.S. Subramani, J. who disposed of both the Revisions had observed that the Managing Trustee has misused his power as a Managing Trustee and has betrayed the confidence reposed in him by the Trust and by the Board. It was further held by the learned Judge that the conclusion arrived at by the lower Court that there is collusion between the lessee and the Managing Trustee is correct and that the Managing Trustee has flouted his authority in entering into such transaction and therefore, he directed the District Court to consider whether the Managing Trustee is entitled to continue as such, since he has abused his position. Thereafter, the District Judge, Nagapattinam viz., the Scheme Judge issued a show cause notice to the Managing Trustee to show-cause as to why he should not be removed from his post as Managing Trustee of the Nagore Dargah since he has abused his possession. On receipt of the said notice, the Managing Trustee submitted his explanation. Thereafter, the Principal District Judge viz., the Scheme Judge, Nagapattinam, who after considering the materials placed before him, passed an order on 21.9.1998 holding that the Managing Trustee Syed Abul Fatah Sahib is unfit to continue as Managing Trustee and therefore, he will stand disqualified from the post of Managing Trustee and removed him from the said post forthwith. He further directed that he should not be elected for the post of Managing Trustee in future also. Aggrieved by the said decision, the present C.R.P. is filed by the Ex. Managing Trustee.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. V. Raghavachari submitted mainly three contentions. According to h