The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to file an application under Section 92 C.P.C. for managing public trusts involving public charity, and the necessity to implead the trusts and trustees as parties in such suits.

JUDGMENT :

P. VELMURUGAN, J.

PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, against the Judgment and Decree dated 07.04.2003 made in A.S. No. 199 of 2001 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Madurai confirming the Judgment and decree dated 13.07.2001 made in O.S. No. 804 of 2000 on the file of the III Additional Sub Court, Madurai.

1. The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 804 of 2000 on the file of the III Additional Sub Court, Madurai. The appellant filed the suit for removal of Trustees and for framing a scheme by appointing him as a Trustee for administration of the Trustee and to hand over the possession of the Trust properties. The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court. Challenging the said Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court, the appellant/plaintiff filed the appeal before the II Additional District Judge, Madurai in A.S. No. 199 of 2001. The first appellate Judge, after hearing the appeal, dismissed the same and confirmed the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court, against which, the appellant/plaintiff has filed the present second appeal before this Court, raising the following substantial questions of law:

“1. Whether the Courts below are right in holding that the appellant should file application under Section 92 C.P.C. when the very right to mange the Trust is questioned by the appellant?

2. Whether the Courts below are right in rejecting the suit on mere ground of non-application under Section 92 C.P.C. when the case is for Samathi Dharmam, which is not coming within the scope of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act?

2......

(i) The case of the appellant/plaintiff, as per the plaint, is that the suit properties originally belonged to one M.R. Malaiandi Ambalakarar. During his life time, he constructed and consecreated a Pillaiyar Temple in the 1st item of B schedule in the suit properties and he was conducting regular pooja every day, by appointing an Archagar for the purpose of doing three times poojas and celebrating elaborately Vinayagar Chathurthi and Pongal festival in a grand manner in the above said Temple and distributing prasadams and feeding poors from and out of the income of the suit properties. The further case of the appellant/plaintiff is that the said M.R. Malaiandi Ambalakarar and his first wife Andammal had conducted Annadhana Dharmam. Even after the death of M.R. Malaiandi Ambalakarar, Annadhanam was continued and after the death of M.R.M. Andammal also, they continued Gurupooja and Annadhanam Dharmam feeding poor people in and around the village of the suit properties with 1001 measures of rice of food and also they gave the feeding to poor with 100 measures of rice on the death Anniversary of Andammal. Even after her life time, the same was continued regularly. The suit properties were fetching larger income and surplus income after doing the Vinayagar temple pooja and Gurupooja as stated above.

(ii) It is the further case of the appellant/plaintiff that after the death of Malaiyandi Ambalakarar, his body was buried opposite to the said Vinayakar Temple and Andammal was conducting Gurupooja of Vinayagar temple charities regularly. After the death of Andammal, her body was also buried for Samathi adjacent to Malaiandi Ambalakarar's Samathi and a statue of 5½ feet of Malaiyandi Ambalakarar was also installed over the Samathi. The said Malaiyandi Ambalakarar was having three wives, by name, Andammal, Puliammal and Andichiammal. Andammal had only one daughter, by name, Aayee Ammal whose son, by name, Thavamani alias Muthuveeran is the father of the plaintiff/appellant herein. The third wife Andichi Ammal, who died in the year 1994, had only one daughter, by name, Mahamayee Ammal, who died in the year 1984, leaving two sons and five daughters. The respondent/defendant is the son of Rajalakshmi Ammal, who is the eldest daughter of Mahamayee Ammal. The respondent/defendant was born to Rajalakshmi and one Ramasamy Ambalam. The said Ramasam