A former trustee removed from membership of a trust, without challenging the removal, has no locus standi to seek impleadment in a trust O.P. for sale of trust properties, as they are neither a proper nor necessary party.

ORDER

The revision petitioner is the petitioner in Trust O.P. No.141 of 2024 before the Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur. Aggrieved by the order permitting impleadment of a former Managing Trustee of the petitioner Trust, invoking Order I, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the revision petitioner is before this Court.

2. I have heard Mr.S.Mukunth, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.A.R.Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.N.George Graham for Mr.Devadasan and Sagar, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. Mr.S.Mukunth, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondent has no locus to get himself impleaded in the Trust O.P. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the respondent was earlier the Managing Trustee of the petitioner Trust and the respondent had herself filed O.P. No.146 of 2017 seeking permission to sell the properties belonging to the petitioner's Trust and the said O.P. was not diligently prosecuted by the respondent and the same came to be dismissed for non prosecution on 05.03.2021.

4. Mr.S.Mukunth, learned Senior Counsel would also take me through the amendments to the Trust, in and where by the respondent was removed from the post of Managing Trustee, but however was retained as a Trustee for a period of one year and by subsequent amendments, the respondent was removed from even primary membership of the Trust. He would therefore contend that the respondent was neither a proper nor necessary party to the Trust O.P.

5. The learned Senior Counsel would also place reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Ashok Shreekrishna Beharay Vs. Joint Charity Commissioner and another , reported in 2025 SCC Online Bom 3993.

6. Per contra, Mr.P.N.George Graham, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioner Trust themselves have filed a suit to validate the amendments removing the respondent from the Trusteeship and the said suit was initially filed before the City Civil Court and now transferred and pending before this Court. The learned counsel would further submit that without the suit being decided, it is open to the petitioner to contend that the respondent is not a proper or necessary party to the Trust O.P. He would further submit that the amendment removing the petitioner is illegal and not valid in law.

7. The suit was originally filed before the City Civil Court in C.S. No.14183 of 2010 and now pending before this Court in C.S. No.400 of 2014. The learned counsel for the respondent would further state that yet another suit in C.S. No.886 of 2013 and yet another suit in C.S. No.205 of 2012 besides Civil Suits in Poonamallee and Ambattur are pending as well. Learned counsel, Mr.George Graham would further state that the Government has initiated proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act, 1961 in respect of the property which is now permitted to be sold with the permission of the Court and it was only the respondent who has filed objections to the notice issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruthani in 2017. The learned counsel would therefore pray that there is no error committed by the Trial Court in permitting impleadment of the respondent as a party in the Trust O.P.

8. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.

9. The respondent does not dispute the fact that having been the Managing Trustee, a resolution was passed as early as on 14.01.2008, pursuant to which the Trust Deed was amended on 08.12.2009, removing the petitioner from the post of Managing Trustee. It is also an admitted position that by subsequent amendment to the Trust Deed on 20.06.2011, the respondent has been removed from the primary membership of the Trust, consequent to a resolution passed on 19.06.2011.

10. As on date, the respondent has neither challenged the two resolutions nor the two amendments, one removing him as Managing Trustee and the other removing him even from the primary mem