The main legal point established in the judgment is that obtaining leave under Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. is procedural and can be obtained at any stage of the suit proceedings. The court also clarified that the suit filed by the Trust, represented by its Secretary, was maintainable even without all trustees being shown as plaintiffs, as one trustee can authorize another to act on their behalf.

R. Subbiah, J.

1. The application in A.No.1174 of 2013 has been filed by defendants 1 and 2 for rejection of the plaint in C.S.No.731 of 2013 under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 C.P.C.

2. Application in A.No.2870 of 2013 has been filed by the plaintiff trust under order XIV Rule 8 of the O.S. Rules read with Order I Rule 8 C.P.C. and order 3 Rule 2 of O.S.Rules to grant leave to file the suit as against the second respondent.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their ranking in the suit.

4. The plaintiff St.George's Cathedral Church, rep. by its Secretary filed the suit in C.S.No.731 of 2013 as against defendants 1 to 3 viz., (i) Rt.Rev.Dr.V.Devasahayam, Bishop in Madras, (ii) The Diocese of Madras, rep. by its Secretary and (iii) Rev.S.Immanuel Devakadatcham, Presbyter in Charge for the following reliefs:-

(i) For a declaration declaring that the appointment of the third defendant by the first defendant as Clergy Trustee of the plaintiff Trust is invalid and null and void,

(ii) For a permanent injunction restraining the third defendant or anyone claiming any right under him from acting as Clergy Trustee of the plaintiff Trust.

(iii) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants or their men or agents or anyone claiming any right under them from interfering with the plaintiff trust's management and administration of the suit schedule property; and

(iv) for costs of the suit.

5. The brief averments made in the plaint are as follows:-

(a) The plaintiff is a public religious and charitable Trust having been created by the deed of Trust dated 9.2.1821 by the United Company of Merchants of England for the purpose of possessing and maintaining the church and other buildings in respect of St. George's Church, which later became St. George's Cathedral Church in the land situated in Old Survey No.3414, Mylapore Village, later R.S.No.63 and now T.S.No.63/1 and 63/2, Block No.3 measuring totally about 684000 sq.ft. or 111-1/4 cawnies or about 285 grounds. The trustees of the plaintiff Trust have been rendering sincere service for the past nearly two centuries to the Church and its properties and they have been functioning as per the rules for the administration of the plaintiff trust which came to be adopted by the Trust at their meeting held on 2.2.1991. The present trustees of the plaintiff Trust are (i) M.M.Rajendran, Senior Trustee, (ii) D.S.Luther, Secretary (iii) M.E.Felix, Trustee and (iv) Lalitha Sukumar, Trustee.

(b) The trustees have been functioning independently as the suit property has been vested with them by the Trust Deed and they have to fulfil the objects of the Trust Deed in administering and managing the said properties for the benefit of the Church. The trustees are also maintaining separate books of accounts relating to the Trust properties and its income and expenditure and its accounts are annually audited and income tax returns are filed in the name of the plaintiff Trust. Though the members of the congregation belonging to St. George's Cathedral Church are members of the Church of South India and coming under the second defendant, the plaintiff Trust is an independent body vested with the suit property and the trustees act in the interest of the Trust to safeguard its properties from profane or common use.

(c) Patta for the suit land stands in the name of the plaintiff Trust as issued in 1993. When the plaintiff Trust decided to restore their church building, which is a heritage building for the bi-centenary celebration to be held in 2015, they sent a letter dated 16.11.2011 to the first defendant informing about the steps taken by the plaintiff for restoration of the church building and also seeking financial assistance from the second defendant of which the first defendant is the head as the finance required was huge and seeking the guidance and co-operation of the first defendant. But, there was no reply from the first defendant. Subsequently, the plaintiff h