ORDER

The petitioners have assailed the correctness of the order dated 22.08.2023 passed by the First Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC at Mangaluru in O.S. No.617/2023 by which an application filed by them under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC was rejected.

2. The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the trial court. The petitioners were the defendants while the respondents were the plaintiffs.

3. The suit in O.S. No.617/2023 was filed for the following reliefs.

(a) For a declaration that the Defendant No.1 and 2 are not lawfully appointed trustees of the 1st Plaintiff Bhandaram in accordance with the trust deed dated 08-10-1923 and for consequential prohibitory injunction restraining the Defendant No.1 and 2 from committing/executing any acts, deeds or things purporting to be the trustees of the

1st Plaintiff Bhandaram.

(b) For permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the 3rd Defendant from appointing any trustees to the 1st Plaintiff Bhandaram without the assent of the 2nd Plaintiff and or in violation of the terms of the trust deed dated 08-10-1923,purporting to be a hereditary trustee of the 1st Plaintiff Bhandaram.

4. The plaintiffs claimed that a private family trust was constituted by Sri Lakshmana Prabhu alias Narayana Theertha Sanyasi on 08.10.1923. The trust deed provided that after the lifetime of the founder trustees the trusteeship would devolve hereditarily upon the respective male issues of the founder trustees. The plaintiffs claimed that since 1983 the plaintiff No.2 and late Maroli Laxman Kamath were the surviving hereditary trustees, of whom the plaintiff No.2 was the managing trustee since 1983 as evidenced by the proceedings of the meeting of the trustees of the plaintiff No.1. They further claimed that in the year 1992 the plaintiff No.2 and Maroli Laxman Kamath co-opted K. Mohan V. Nayak and U.Vishwanath Nayak as the ‘Hangami Trustees’ so as to the assist the plaintiff No.2 and Maroli Laxman Kamath. The plaintiffs claimed that the co-option was invalid as it was contrary to Clause 19 of trust deed dated 08.10.1923. They contended that a ‘Hangami Trustee’ could be co- opted from Gowda Saraswath community only when the successors of a founder trustee or a trustee who has resigned are minors, till such time they attain age of majority.

5. The plaintiffs claimed that at the time of co-

option of K.Mohan V. Nayak and U. Vishwanath Nayak no such circumstance existed. They further claimed that the co-opted trustees were not appointed to fill up the post of any trustees that fell vacant due to death or resignation of previous trustees nor were they appointed during the minority of any successor or any hereditary trustee. Thus the plaintiffs claimed that the aforesaid persons could not claim to be validly appointed trustees of the plaintiff No.1. They further alleged that there were serious allegations of misfeasance or malfeasance against the aforesaid co-opted trustees and therefore the plaintiff was entitled to question their conduct. The plaintiffs alleged that in order to cover up their misdeeds, the aforesaid two persons ganged up with the deceased Maroli Laxman Kamath and conspired to remove the plaintiff No.2 as the managing trustee of the plaintiff No.1. They, by their letter dated 15.10.1994 informed the plaintiff No.2 that they held a meeting of the trustees on 14.10.1994 and had removed the plaintiff No.2 as the managing trustee of the plaintiff No.1.

6. The plaintiff No.2 rejected the assertions by issuing a reply on 18.10.1994. The plaintiff No.2 filed O.S. No.497/1997 against the aforesaid three persons for a declaration that the resolution dated 14.10.1994 as illegal and for a declaration that he continued to be the managing trustee of the temple and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with the second plaintiff from functioning as the managing trustee of the temple. This suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 19.02.2002 following which