The court clarifies the principles governing the impleadment of parties in trust management disputes, emphasizing necessity and relevance for effective adjudication.

Order:

RENUKA YARA, J.

This Civil Revision Petition is preferred aggrieved by the order dated 01.04.2025 in I.A.No.148 of 2023 in O.S.No.66 of 2022 passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge for trial of SCs/STs (POA) Act cases-cum-II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Nalgonda, wherein, a petition filed under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of CPC with a prayer to implead the proposed parties as defendant Nos.4 to 8 in the main suit has been allowed.

2. Heard Sri E. Sreenivas Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs and Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5. Perused the record.

3. The revision petitioners filed suit for rendition of accounts, injunction and appointment of a receiver against respondent Nos.6 to 8/defendant Nos.1 to 3 with respect to Sri Sri Sevya Sadhu (Bhudiya Bhappu) Mattam/petitioner No.1. The petitioner No.1/plaintiff No.1 is registered as a trust under Indian Trust Act in the year 2021. Said trust is registered by petitioner Nos.2 to 4. The petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and respondent Nos.6 and 7’s grandfather has constructed a temple Sri Sri Sevya Saadhu (Bhudiya Bhappu) Mattam in the year 1957. The petitioners and respondent Nos.6 to 8 are relatives and have developed under one roof. During the life time of one Lachiram Naik, the petitioner No.1 continued its existence from 1968 onwards. The parties belong to Banjara community. Said Lachiram Naik was the head priest of petitioner No.1 Mattam till his demise. Said Lachiram Naik intended to develop a trust in the name of petitioner No.1 and discussed the same with petitioner Nos.2 to 4 and respondent Nos.6 to 8, for which they have agreed for formation of trust but unfortunately, prior to formation of trust, on 07.05.2016, he died due to heart attack. After Lachiram Naik’s death, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and respondent Nos.6 and 7 to fulfill their father’s last desire to form a trust continued the poojas in petitioner No.1 Mattam and there were differences in the management of the trust leading to filing of the suit seeking rendition of accounts, deposit of amounts and perpetual injunction. In said suit, the implead petitioners intended to implead themselves. The singular reason cited is that after the death of Lachiram Naik, on 12.05.2017, the implead petitioners and others have executed Angeekara Pathram wherein as per tradition of Girijana Acharam, respondent No.6 who is the youngest son of family has to become poojari. All the signatories have accepted to make the respondent No.6 as poojari. The implead petitioners have been suppressed at the creation of Trust Deed without consulting them and caste people and therefore, sought to implead themselves.

4. The revision petitioners herein opposed the petition by filing counter alleging that the issue is about management of the trust and not about the appointment of a poojari. Further, it is alleged that Angeekara Pathram dated 12.05.2017 is forged document and said fact is confirmed by the report of Truth Labs, Hyderabad dated 01.02.2024. It is the specific case of revision petitioners that the implead petitioners are neither trustees nor beneficiaries under the petitioner No.1 Mattam and therefore, not necessary parties. As such, sought dismissal of the petition.

5. The learned Trial Court upon considering the contention of both the parties allowed the petition leading to filing of the present Civil Revision Petition.

6. In grounds of revision, it is pleaded that the plaintiff is the dominus litus and cannot be compelled to make a third party to the suit to become a co-plaintiff or defendant. It is pleaded that respondent Nos.1 to 5 claimed that on 12.05.2017, they and their agnates have executed Angeekara Pathram and as per said document, respondent No.6 became the poojari. The respondent No.