- (1.) THE petitioner and the three respondents are the trustees of Kottur Rangasamy Mudaliar trust ('KRM Trust') in Short). THE first respondent is the Managing Trustee. A scheme decree was passed by the scheme Court viz District Court, Tanjore. THEreafter, the trustees who were then on the Board of Trustee filed several appeal for modification of the scheme and by the judgment dated 6.12.1916, the scheme was modified by a Division Bench of this Court. Para 25 of the scheme Decree as modified by this Court gave liberty to the parties to apply to the District Court, Tanjore for further directions in the future. THE petitioner herein filed I.A.No.7 of 1998 before the scheme Court to enquire into the facts of commission and omission and to pass such orders and give such directions as are proper and necessary for the better administration of. the Trust Estate. This was dismissed by the Scheme Judge namely, the Principal District Judge at Nagapatinam and therefore, this revision has been filed.
(2.) PENDING revision, C.M.P.No.6131 of 2001 was filed by a third party to the petition who was a Judge of this Court and the Karnataka High Court and thereafter, the Vice Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal. In his affidavit filed in support of the petition he has indicated that the objects of the Trust should be fully implemented and the Trust should be preserved. His grievance is that many of the laudable objects of the Trust have been allowed to fall into misuse and he prays that this Court should exercise its pareus patriae control over the Trust, and regularise the activities of the Trust so that the intentions of the founder are fully carried out. The affidavit makes it clear that he is not interested in being put in management of the Trust but he seeks to implead himself only as a member of the founder's family. Mr. T.R. Rajaraman, learned counsel for the third party petitioner reiterated the averments made in the affidavit and prayed that the impleading petition should be ordered. He relied on the decision reported in Kannan Adityan v. Adityan, 1996 (2) L.W. 364 to support the case of impleading petition. Mr. V.K. Vijaya Raghavan, learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3, who are the respondents 1 and 2 in the main revision strongly opposed the impleading petition. He submitted that the petitioner in this civil miscellaneous petition is not a "person interested". There are references to the Will in the affidavit which are irrelevant because the scheme framed by the District Judge and modified by this Court would supersede any such testamentary instrument and that this third party also is not necessary for deciding the revision. He also submitted that the affidavit does not bring out any specific act of misfeasance and malfeasance and the allegations are very vague. He further referred to the communication sent by the petitioner in the civil miscellaneous petition congratulating the respondents for their good work in managing the Trust and that itself would disprove the allegations of misfeasance and malfeasance. He relied on Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others, 1992 (2) SCC 524 and Sangamesh Printing Press v. Chief Executive Officer, 1999 (6) SCC 441. In Kannan Adityan v. Adityan,1996 (2) L.W. 364, the Division' Bench of this Court held that even a person who had given up his claim to trusteeship and who had not done anything to show his interest in the Trust can still be a person interested. "... It does not preclude him from initiating proceedings to protect the interests of the Trust as and when he finds that they are in jeopardy and the Trust, is not managed properly. In AIR 1990 SC 444(cited supra), which was referred to in this case, the Supreme Court held thus: "The legal position which emerges is that a suit under S.92 of the Code is a suit of a special nature for the protection of Public rights in the Public Trusts and charities. The suit is fundamentally on behalf of the entire body of persons who are interested in the trust. It is for the vindication of public rights. The beneficiaries of the trust, which may consist of public at large, may choose two or more persons amongst themselves for the purpose of filing a suit under S.92 of the Code and the suit-title in that event would show only their names as plaintiffs. Can we say that the persons whose names are on the suit-title are the only parties to the suit" The answer would be in the negative."
(3.) IN Sangamesh Printing Press v. Chief Executive Officer, 1999 (6) SCC 441, it was held thus , "CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 Or.1, R.10 (2) and Or.27, R5-A " Where application under Or. 1 Rule, 10(2)filed seeking to imp lead State Govt. as a defendant, held such application must be decided before appeal is heard." In Ramesh Hirachand Kundammal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, 1992 (2) SCC 524 it was held thus: "CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 _ Order, l R.10(2) _ Addition of necessary party _ Court has judicial discretion which it has to exercise having regard to facts and circumstances of the case. In exercise of this discretion court can direct a plaintiff, though dominus litis, to implead a person as a necessary party defendant" In this case, the learned counsel for the contesting respondent strongly urged that the person seeking to implead himself had long ago left Mannargudi and has not been interested in the Trust and there was no need for him to be impleaded. It is not in dispute that the founder and the impleading petitioner belong to the same community. One of the clauses in the scheme provides for education of the boys belonging to that community and for hostel for them. The fact that a person moves out of his native village because of his profession or occupation does not mean that he ceases to have an interest in any Trust or schemes that are for religious, charitable or secular purposes. From the decisions relied on and referred to above it is clear that in matters pertaining to the Trusts, the suit is fundamentally and basically on behalf of the entire body of persons who are interested in the Trust and if a person interested in the Trust has reason to believe that certain activities of the Trust are not for the benefit of the Trust it is surely open to him to raise objections to such action. ;