A suit under S.92 of the CPC for framing a scheme for the management of a trust is maintainable only if the plaint contains the particulars of the machinery which was existing for managing the trust hitherto during the past 50 years; how the present arrangement existing was not conducive for its management; as to why by any other arrangement apart from moving the Court, necessary safeguards could not be taken; as to how by inducting three more trustees, and out of whom, two are beyond 70 years, the trust could be better managed than by the existing old people etc.

SATHIADEV

O.S.A. 113 of 1986 is preferred by three persons of which first appellant is a member of the Executive Committee of Kalakshetra, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, the second appellant is a life member of the Society and the third appellant is not only a life member but also member of its Executive Committee. They sought for leave to present the appeal against the judgement in C.S. 716 of 1985 and also to condone the delay in preferring the said appeal in C.M.P. Nos. 935 and 5269 of 1986 and leave was granted on 16-4-1986.

2. O.S.A. 192 of 1986 is filed by fourth defendant in C.S. No. 716 of 1985. Both the appeals are preferred against the scheme decree passed in the said suit No. on 20-11-1985. C.S. 716 of 1986 (A) was filed on the Original Side of this Court under S.92(1) and O.VII, R.1, C.P.C. by three plaintiffs claiming that they are persons having interest in the Trust called 'Kalakshetra'.

3. In the plaint, it is stated as follows :- 'Kalakshetra, the first defendant, was founded by the first plaintiff. Rukmani Devi Arundale in or about 1936, as a public charitable trust. She was the Founder life trustee Director of the Trust. She nominated the other plaintiffs among others as co-trustees, and all of them together constituted the Board of Trustees of the Trust. She acquired over the years the properties mentioned in schedule A to the plaint, and dedicated the same to the trust, which was having the management and control of the Trust, and its properties are vested in the Board of trustees with the first plaintiff as the life-President and founder Director. In paras. 5, 12 objects of the Trust are enumerated. The Trust, as an institution, had acquired considerable magnitude; especially since 1962. The first defendant in so far as it related to its academic activities was registered as a Society, first under the Societies Registration Act 1866 and later on under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Its memorandum of association sets out its objects and it provides for an Executive Committee, a General Body etc. However, the Society is and has always been distinct and different from the Kalakshetra Trust and its trustees, in whom the properties and management and control of the Trust had been vested. In its discretion, the trust sanctions funds to the Society for its various activities. It is the first plaintiff who had been responsible for its growth, and keeping in mind the fact that she and other trustees have become old in age and that time has come to take suitable steps to device a machinery to preserve, promote and manage the trust in perpetuity and carry out their valuable objectives for ever, the trustees have unanimously arrived at certain view points,, which form part of the draft scheme enclosed to the plaint. Out of the many suggested, the important aspects relate to vesting of the properties in 9 trustees who are to hold office for lifetime, and the first set of trustees has to be named by the Court and the said set up to supersede all else hitherto obtaining including the Society etc. Leave of the Court under S.92(1), C.P.C. having been obtained plaintiffs have prayed for settling of a scheme of management as contained in the draft scheme appended to the plaint, and for constitution of Board of Trustees by naming and nominating its first nine trustees and granting permission to seek in future for directions of this Court in respect of the trust.

3A. Apart from the A schedule properties, B schedule in the plaint refers to properties belonging to a public charitable trust called Besant Centenary Trust, and which had been impleaded as the second defendant in the suit represented by its secretary P.B. Krishnamurthi. In so far as they are concerned, similar relief had been prayed for so as to vest those properties also in the same trust. No appeal having been referred relating

to B schedule properties, these appeals are confi