Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—This defendants’ appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘C.P.C.’) has arisen from judgment and decree dated 15th May, 1987 passed by Shri Munendra Kumar, IIIrd Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, Kanpur in Original Suit No. 10 of 1982, filed under Section 92 C.P.C., for removal of defendants No. 1 to 4 from trusteeship and appointment of Shri Mahabir Prasad and plaintiff 2 as new trustees and for some other relifes.

2. Trial Court decreed the suit, passing following operative order:

“The suit of the plaintiffs is decreed. The defendants No. 1 to 4 are directed to furnish the accounts of the trust and the accounts relating to the investment of the sale proceeds raised from the sale of the property of the trust at Bombay. The defendants No. 1 to 4 will, however, remain the trustee but at the same time plaintiff No. 1 and plaintiff No. 2 are appointed trustees. They shall be included in the list of trustees and they shall hold the office of the trustees and entitled to attend the meetings of the trust and to have full knowledge of the resolutions drawn and minutes known. The strength of the trustees from the branch of each brother would be equal. Now trustees from the branch of Mahabir Prasad (deceased), Shyam Sunder and Kailashpat would be added. The defendant No. 1 to 4 would not sell any property of the trust at Kanpur, Varanasi and Calcutta without the leave of the Court. The trustees may seek any further directions from the Court as and when necessary for the administration of the Management and property of the suit. The plaintiffs decree holders to take steps accordingly. Since the property is trust property and the plaintiffs and defendants are equally interested in the betterment and advancement of the trust, no order as the costs. The defendants to furnish accounts within one month from the date of this decree. The plaintiffs to take steps for getting the accounts examined and scrutinised. Let a preliminary decree be prepared. Further matters and questions will be considered at final decree stage.”

3. The facts in brief, giving rise to the present appeal, are as under:­

4. Two plaintiffs Prakash Chandra Jhunjhunwala and Laxmi Kant Jhunjhunwala, sons of Late Dwarka Das Jhunjhunwala, resident of Motinagar, District Faizabad instituted Original Suit No. 10 of 1982 vide plaint dated 26.4.1982 impleading following five defendants:

1.Vishnu Dayal Jhunjhunwala, son of Late Dwarka Das Jhunjhunwala, resident of Aurangabad, Post Box No. 14, 235 Sector No. 7, Chiral Thane, Marthawada Refractions Ltd., Aurangabad.

2. Bharat Kumar Jhunjhunwala

3. Vinod Kumar Jhunjhunwala

4. Ramesh Kumar Jhunjhunwala

(2 to 4) sons of Vishnu Dayal Jhunjhunwala, residents of Motinagar, District Faizabad

5. Moti Lal Bhimraj Charity Trust, through its Chairman Vishnu Dayal Jhunjhunwala, Bank of India Building, 185 Sheikh Memon Street, Bombay-400002.

5. The plaint case set up by plaintiffs-respondents is that defendant 5, Moti Lal Bhimraj Charity Trust, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trust’), is a public charitable trust, originally founded and established on 12th March, 1936 under the provisions of “The Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950” (hereinafter referred to as ‘Bombay Act, 1950). It was created through a Trust Deed dated 13th March, 1936, registered at Serial No. 12049 by Sub-Registrar, Bombay. The object and purpose of Trust is to support educational institutions, disburse charges and scholarship to students in the country and abroad, promoting and propagating the cause of education, creating faith in public and so on. The purpose and object of Trust are elaborately stated in para-IV of Trust Deed.

6. Originally, certain properties in Calcutta were dedicated by the author of Trust. Certain more properties were subsequently given and added to Trust vide another registered Deed of Trust dated 3.11.1951. Trust, had, therefore, properties movable and immovable at Bombay, Ca