ORDER

This application has been filed by the applicants/ defendants 1 to 7 seeking an order to reject the plaint in C.S.No.133 of 2022.

2.Heard the arguments made by either side learned counsels and perused the materials available on record. 3.The averments of the petition in brief:

The applicants are the defendants. The defendants 3, 4, and 5 are not connected with the Trust's activities, and they were appointed as members of the Disciplinary Committee to conduct domestic enquiry against the 1st respondent. The petitioners 6 and 7 are the other two active Trustees of the M/s.Mahalaxmi Educations Trust, which is presently managing the Trust. The 1st respondent had been removed from the trusteeship in view of the findings given by the Disciplinary Committee dated 12.09.2021 and vide the letter of the Trust dated 15.09.2021. The 1st respondent has filed this suit as though he continues to be the Trustee of the said Trust.

3.1. The 1st petitioner's Trust is not a public charitable Trust, or a religious Trust and hence, the 1st respondent has no locus standi to file this suit under Sec. 92 C.P.C. There is absolutely no allegation of breach of any Trust or conditions stipulated under the Trust deed for the purpose of seeking a Scheme for the administration of the Trust. In fact, there is no relief sought for proper Administration of the Trust and all that needed was to run the School by the name and style of 'M/s Cambridge Matriculation Higher Secondary School'. The 1st respondent was removed from the Trusteeship for misappropriating several lakhs of the Trust's funds. Just in order to settle his personal vengeance, the suit has been filed.

3.2. The said school is a tenant paying monthly rent, and it does not own any immovable property. The deed of Trust dated 29.09.1991 would show that the corpus of the Trust is a sum of Rs.1001/- and that no other immovable property was endowed to the 1st petitioner's Trust on that date or any subsequent date. The 1st petitioner's Trust is functioning with three trustees; there is no proposal to either close down the school or sell the school run by the Trust. Neither the school nor the 1st petitioner's trust owns or possess any immovable property in their names, and the suit schedule property over which the school exists is the 2nd petitioner's private property.

3.3. However, the 1st respondent did not assist her and he was always interested in his own personal welfare. After the 2nd petitioner/ plaintiff was appointed as a Managing trustee, the 1st respondent never co-operated and he always acted unilaterally. Hence the 2nd petitioner /plaintiff was forced to induct new trustees to continue the activities of the Trust. Since the 1st respondent had personally involved in handling the books of accounts of the Trust, he is well aware of the financial position of the school; but he did not exercise proper care in maintaining the trust funds. The Trust is functioning in a democratic manner to fulfill its objectives. The ousted trustee is attempting to disturb the tempo of the Trust by filing the suit without making any ground or citing any reason for seeking a scheme. The

1st petitioner is not a public Trust and hence there is no locus standi for the 1st respondent to file any petition under Sec.92 C.P.C. Hence, this suit itself is not maintainable.

4. The brief facts of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents: The first respondent /1st plaintiff and Founder Trustee of the 1st petitioner Trust and the 2nd respondent is a local resident who is in public service. The school was famous institute in their area before 2015 and thereafter its strength was going down due to the ineffective management and malpractice committed by the people at the helm of the affairs. M/s.Mahalaxmi Educational Trust was formed in the year 1991 and established the school in the name M/s.Cambridge Matriculation Higher Secondary School approved by the Director of Matriculation Schools at No.148, (Old No.313) Lloyds Road, Avv