JUDGMENT

A preliminary decree for settling a Scheme for the better administration of a trust created under Ext.A1 supplemented by Ext.A2 deed is brought under challenge by defendants 1 and 2 mainly on the ground that it is only a private trust and a suit under Section 92 C.P.C. cannot be maintained and that there is no need or necessity for settling a scheme unless there is allegation of mismanagement or misappropriation. The trial court went wrong by granting a preliminary decree overlooking the abovesaid two aspects, hence the appeal.

2. The trust was admittedly created by the founder, one Muthukrishnan, the first defendant, who remained absent without submitting any written statement. During the pendency, he passed away. His wife, the second defendant, Girija Muthukrishnan, hotly contested the suit. She is one of the trustees of the trust originally created by Muthkrishnan appointing himself as Managing Trustee and two others as trustees, including Girija Muthukrishnan, the 2^nd defendant, under Ext.A1. It was subsequently supplemented by Ext.A2 by which two other trustees were also inducted.

3. The contention that it is only a private trust cannot be sustained and liable to be r