A suit under Section 92 of CPC must serve public interest and establish breach of trust; claims of personal grievances cannot sustain such suits.

JUDGMENT :

K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.

1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against order dated 12.06.2025 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2021 in OSCFR No.10337 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore.

2.The appellants, as plaintiffs filed suit under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code for the following reliefs:

a. Declaring that the plaintiffs are the lifetime Managing Trustees of 'Coimbatore Auto Sports and Transport Trust.'

b. Granting an order of permanent injunction restraining the 1^st defendant, his family members, agents, from in any way, in any manner swapping the properties of 'Coimbatore Auto Sports and Transports Trust.'

3.According to the plaintiffs, a trust under the Name and Style of 'Coimbatore Auto Sports and Transport Trust' was formed on 09.09.1987 for General and Public Utility and Charity and the same was registered the office of the 3^rd defendant. The said Trust was formed by the father's of the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 & 2 respectively. It is specifically mentioned in the Trust deed, that the Trust is formed for the following purpose:

1.To promote motor sport and providing the necessary amenities,

2.To acquire land, build and maintain for the purpose of laying racing tracks and other connected infrastructure connected to automobiles and aircraft,

3.To help individual or institution which have objects similar to that of this trust,

4.To invest funds in banks,

5.To start and run educational institutions, Hospitals,

6.To provide scholarship to meritorious students,

7.To run and start hostels for poor and old people,

8.To finance medical treatment and give free medicines to poor patients etc.

4.The plaintiffs after the demise of their fathers, expressed their wishes to become the Managing Trustee to the defendants 1 & 2. It is further submitted that as per the said Deed of Trust, the five Managing Trustees shall individually nominate their individual successor to the office of the Trusteeship and the same can be evidenced by the letters sent by the plaintiffs to the defendants 1 & 2 on 11.07.2015. The 2^nd defendant in his letter dated 07.11.2013 accepted the wish of the plaintiffs and recognized them as Managing Trustees of the said Trust on the demise of the said founder Trustees. While so, the 1^st defendant after receipt of the said letters sent a reply on 24.07.2015 denying the rights of the plaintiffs. The 1^st defendant is withholding all the title deeds, Management and unilaterally taking decisions on behalf of the said Trust, without the consent of other Trustees and attempting to swap the properties purchased in the name of the Trust. Hence, the suit.

5.On the other hand, the defendants 1 & 2 submits that the above suit was filed without adding the Trust as a party since the reliefs claimed are directly pertaining to and against the Trust. Hence, the suit is bad for necessary and proper parties. It is further submitted that the letter dated 07.11.2013 set to have given by the 2^nd defendants was never acted upon, which is evident from the letters of the plaintiffs to the 1^st defendant. It is further contended that as per clause 18 of the Deed of the Trust dated 09.09.1987, the Board of Trustees has to decide in the absence of the nomination or Will by the late Trustees and not by any individual Trustee. Further, the 2^nd defendant himself has given up the letter dated 07.11.2013 by participating in the meeting of the Board of Trustees on 20.1.2020 and signed the resolution. Moreover, the claim of the plaintiffs was declined by the letter dated 24.07.2015 by the 1^st defendant and the plaintiffs being well aware o