This application has been filed seeking leave to institute the suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The plaintiffs have sought for the following reliefs in the suit:

i. For a further declaration that the defendants 2 to 6 are not entitled to function as Trustees of Sathyanarayana Charitable Trust and direct removal of all Trustees.

ii. Directing the defendants to render accounts of the 1st defendant s Trust.

iii. For formation of the scheme by this Hon’ble Court to manage the 1st defendant Trust.

iv. Permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disposing the Trust properties.

v. For cost of this suit.

3. The nature of the reliefs sought for are not in dispute. It is admitted that the suit as framed would be a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs 1 to 3 are the grandsons and the 4th plaintiff is daughter-in-law of the author of the trust, namely CH. Sathyanarayana. The said CH. Sathyanarayana, had created a trust, under Registered Trust dated 05.06.1968. He also left a Will dated 19.06.1968, which was probated after his death on 07.02.1971 in OP No.165 of 1972. According to the said Will certain properties were bequeathed by him to the Trust. The main objects of the Trust are as follows:-

1. To establish, maintain run, develop, improve, extent, grant donation for and to aid and assist in the Establishment, maintenance, running, development, improvement and extension of General and Technical education, Industrial Technical or other Art, Craft and Science, Schools and institutions or all kinds of Educational Institutions of General, Technical, professional or of any other description whatsoever and to institute and award scholarship to deserving students for study, research and apprenticeship and to run or assist the running or hostels for the benefit of students and scholars.

2. To establish, maintain, run, develop, libraries and reading books.

3. To provide medical relief, namely running of hospital, Nursing Homes etc.,

4. Under the trust deed, testator had appointed three trustees and the mode of appointment of future trustees is also provided in the trust deed itself. The author had nominated his wife Sri. C.H. Balamoney, his son-in-law K.R. Purushotham, and himself as the first trustees of the trust. The said deed also provides that the first trustees shall hold the office for their lives and other trustees, who may be appointed shall hold office for a period of 3 years from their respective dates of appointment unless, by the terms of their appointment, some other period is fixed. The power to appoint trustees is also given to the trustees. Clause 16 of the trust deed reads as follows:-

“The trustees may at any time and from time to time appoint any person or persons as trustees or trustees to fill any vacancies in the office of the trustees or as additions to the existing trustees provided the total number of trustees shall not exceed maximum of nine mentioned above.”

5. The author of the trust died some time in 1971 and thereafter, it appears that the other two trustees, namely, K.R. Purushotham, C.H. Balamoney, continued to be trustees. By a letter dated 01.03.1985 the other trustee namely, C.H. Balamoney, wife of the founder trustee had required that her son should be appointed as the third trustee. The other surviving trustee had not acceded to her request. Thereafter, the 1st plaintiff in the proposed suit as legal heir of one of the sons of the founder of the trust had addressed a letter to the Managing Trustee, namely Mr. K.R. Purushotham, seeking details of the income and expenditure of the trust. It appears that the said Mahesh Kumar Reddy has also followed it up by another notice dated 24.01.2002, issued by his counsel claiming that he has a legal right and interest over the property of C.H. Sathyanarayana and Sathyanarayana Charitable Trust as well as in the properties vested in the trust by his grandfather. He also sought for det