Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 1153
High Court of Judicature at Madras
T.S. SIVAGNANAM
Surya & Others
Versus
Pakkirisa & Others
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.1235, 1236 & 1579 of 2006 & M.P.Nos.1 of 2006 (3 Nos.) & M.P.No.1 of 2008
Decided on: 02-03-2012
For the Petitioners:S.K. Rakhunathan, N.C. Siddharth for T.R. Rajaraman, Advocates.
For the Respondents:G.K. Ilanthiraiyan for M/s. Sai, Bharath, Ilan, N. Manokaran, Advocates.
The main legal point established is that granting leave for a suit under Section 92 of the CPC without notice to the defendants and the potential undoing of a previous decree are not appropriate.
Headnote:
Trust - Trustee Removal - Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure - 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed suits seeking to remove the defendants from trusteeship of a trust for breach of trust, misappropriation, and malfeasance. The defendants resisted, and the court granted leave to the plaintiffs to file suits under Section 92 of the CPC without notice to the defendants. The defendants filed applications to revoke the leave, which were dismissed by the Trial Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court held that a fresh suit for removal of trustees is not barred even if there is an existing scheme decree. It also found that the plaintiffs had locus standi to file the suit and that prior notice was not required for granting leave under Section 92 of the CPC. However, the High Court held that the leave granted would undo a previous decree and set aside the Trial Court's order.
Issues: The issues revolved around the bar for filing a fresh suit under Section 92 of the CPC, the locus standi of the plaintiffs, and the requirement of prior notice for granting leave under Section 92.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that granting leave for a suit under Section 92 without notice to the defendants was not appropriate. It also found that the leave granted would undo a previous decree and set aside the Trial Court's order.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision petitions were allowed, and the Trial Court's order was set aside.
Common Order
1. Since the issue involved in all these revision petitions are common and relate to a trust called Deivasigamani Pillai Sadavarthy Charity Trust, these revisions were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.
2. C.R.P.No.1235 of 2006 is directed against the fair and final order dated 24.3.2006 in I.A.No.266 of 2004 in I.A.No.223 of 2004 in O.S.No.138 of 2004 on the file of Principal District Judge Cuddalore. C.R.P.No.1236 of 2006 is directed against the fair and final order dated 24.3.2006 in I.A.No.269 of 2005 in I.A.No.927 of 2002 in O.S.No.99 of 2005 on the file of Principal District Judge Cuddalore. C.R.P.No.1579 of 2006 is directed against the fair and decreetal order dated 24.3.2006 in I.A.No.39 of 2005 in O.S.No.138 of 2004.
3. The petitioner in C.R.P.No.1235 of 2006 is the second defendant in O.S.No.138 of 2004. The first respondent is the plaintiff in the suit and the other respondents are defendants 1 and 3 to 10. The petitioner in C.R.P.No.1236 of 2006 is the second defendant in O.S.No.99 of 2005. Respondents 1 to 3 are the plaintiffs and respondents 4 and 5 are defendants 1 and 3 in the suit. The petitioner in C.R.P.No.1579 of 2006 are defendants 6 and 7 in O.S.No.138 of 2004 and the respondents are the plaintiffs.
4. For the sake of convenience, the petitioners are referred to as defendants and the respondents as plaintiffs.
5. The plaintiffs filed two suits in O.S.Nos.138 of 2004 and 99 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Court, Cuddalore for more or less an identical relief. The sum and substance of the reliefs sought for in the suits are to remove the defendants from the trusteeship of Deivasigamani Pillai Sadavarthy Charity Trust (hereinafter referred to as "the Trust") for their acts of breach of trust; misappropriation, malfeasance and misfeasance; for appointment of three new trustees, preferably the plaintiffs, who belong to a particular community; to frame fresh scheme, modifying the existing scheme suitably to the present days context; for rendition of accounts; for ordering an enquiry into the accounts and general administration of the trust and trust properties and reimbursement of the amounts alleged to have been misappropriated out of the trust funds.
6. The defendants resisted the suit claim by filing a written statement, wherein the plaint allegations were denied. It appears that after filing the written statement, the defendants came to know that the Court had granted leave to the plaintiffs to file a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "CPC") without notice to them and therefore, they filed I.A.Nos.266 of 2004, 269 of 2005 and 39 of 2005 to revoke the leave granted in the respective suits. Those applications were resisted by the plaintiffs by raising various averments.
7. The learned District Judge, Cuddalore by a common order dated 24.3.2006 dismissed the applications filed for revocation of the leave granted to be plaintiffs under Section 92 CPC. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendants have filed these three revisions.
8. I have elaborately heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and carefully perused the materials available on record.
9. Before we deal with the controversy in issue, certain facts which are necessary for the disposal of the Civil Revision Petitions are to be stated.
10. The trust was created by one Deivasigamani Pillai, S/o Arumugam Pillai by his last Will and Testament dated 22.6.1866 and it was created as a public charitable and religious trust. Though several facts have been placed as regards the succession of the trusteeship, in these revisions, those factual details are not required to be gone into, since the only question that has to be considered is as to whether the plaintiffs are entitled to maintain a suit for the reliefs as stated above.
11. It is seen that the suit in O.S.No.18 of 1963 on t
