Point of law: in the guise of registering the supplementary trust deed, the petitioner cannot enter into any transaction, which would dilute the right of the 3rd respondent in the pending civil Court proceedings initiated against the petitioner trust

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the refusal check slip order dated 11.06.2020 quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to register the document presented by the petitioners trust.)

1. The case of the petitioner is that he is one of the founder trustees of the petitioner trust, which was registered on the file of the 2nd respondent in Doc.No.184/2010. However, at the time of forming the trust, there were 20 trustees and the main object of the trust was to promote and run schools and colleges for the welfare of the poor and needy, among other objects of the trust. The trust has started a school with a strength of 500 students and has been managing the same in furtherance of its objects. The Trust has been managed by Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer, who were elected office bearers from among the trustees.

2. According to the petitioner, over a period of time, several trustees had expressed their willingness to move out of the trusteeship and they have been replaced by induction of new trustees. The exercise of the replacement of the old with new Trustees has been done, without any hindrance to the day today running of the school and the administration of the trust. In 2017, one trustee by name, C.Bharathidhasan was removed from the Trust and he has filed a suit before the District Munsif Court, Kulithalai for an injunction restraining the trustees from alienating the suit property, namely, the school and an injunction against the respondents 1 and 2 not to register any documents alienating the suit property to 3rd parties by the trustees. According to the petitioner, the suit was filed in December, 2019. In the meanwhile, on 13.10.2019, a meeting of the trustees was held and as per resolution No. 3, 12 existing trustees expressed their willingness to be relieved from the trusteeship and therefore, the vacancies were filled up by inducting 12 new persons as trustees to the petitioner trust.

3. In view of the above development, a new trust deed was executed on 02.03.2020 by inducting 12 new trustees in the place of existing trustees and the document was presented for registration before the 2nd respondent. The document was not registered for some time, but on enquiry, the trust was informed that supplementary deed could not be registered for the reason that the erstwhile trustee, namely, C.Bharathidhasan, has filed a civil suit and the same is pending before the Civil Court concerned, wherein, the respondents have also been made as party and hence, the document was returned by refusing to register the same on 11.06.2020. Challenging the refusal slip dated 11.06.2020, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Mr.A.Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the document, which has been presented before the 2nd respondent was only in respect of trusteeship as several trustees had quit from the petitioner trust and in their places, new trustees have been inducted and the registration of document had nothing to do with the alienation of the trust properties nor there was any attempt to encumber the trust properties, which would have any bearing on the pending suit initiated by the said C.Bharathidhasan before the civil Court. According to the learned counsel, the 3rd respondent, who has been subsequently impleaded in this proceedings, has an objection only in regard to the protection of the property of the trust and he may not have any objection as to the registration of supplementary trust deed, containing the names of newly inducted Trustees.

5. Notice was ordered in this case and in response to the same, Mr.K.Sathiya Singh, learned Additional Government Pleader has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.V.Nagarajan, learned counsel has entered appearance on behalf of the 3rd respondent.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respo