- (1.) Application No. 3979 of 2014 in C.S. No. 562 of 2013 is filed by one B.Gowri, applicant/third party seeking an order to implead her as fourth plaintiff in the suit in C.S. No. 562 of 2013.
(2.) It is seen that the suit has been filed by plaintiffs seeking judgment and decree for the following reliefs: (a) for framing a scheme for the administration of the third defendant trust making provision for the number of trustees, the method of accounting, action to be taken for misconduct of trustees and such other matters as may be necessary for the proper administration of the trust and doing so to consider whether or not the first defendant should continue as trustee of the third defendant trust or not; (b) call upon the first defendant to render true and proper account of his administration of the trust from the date of his assumption of charge as trustee and direct him to make good such amounts as may be found unauthorisedly spent or taken away by him and make good the trust the loss occasioned by the first defendant or any other defendant; (c) direct a thorough investigation into the affairs of the third defendant trust and to trace the funds siphoned off from the third defendant trust into the hands of any third party including without limitation the defendants 4 to 12 and to take necessary steps to recover from them; (d) directing such further or other enquires as may be necessary to render justice into the conduct of defendants 1 and 2 as trustees of the third defendant; (e) the plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that the defendants 1 to 3 have not right whatsoever to appoint any additional trustees and a consequent permanent injunction restraining any person claiming to have been appointed by defendants 1 to 3 as an Additional Trustee from claiming or acting as such in any manner as trustees of the third defendant trust and (f) directing the defendants to pay the costs of the suit.
(3.) Dr.Abishek Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for applicants in Application No. 2390 of 2014 drew the attention of this Court to para No. 2 of the plaint, wherein the plaintiffs have specifically stated that the first defendant B.Sivanthi Adityan known as B.S.Adityan s/o. Si.Pa.Aditanar died on 19.04.2013 itself, prior to the filing of the suit, however, the substantial reliefs sought for in the suit is only against the said dead person, which is not legally sustainable and on that score, the plaint has to be rejected. It is seen that the prayer "b" is to call upon the first defendant, admittedly a dead person, to render true and proper accounts of his administration of the trust from the date of his assumption of charge as trustee and direct him to make good such amounts as may be found unauthorisedly spent or taken away by him and make good the trust the loss caused by the first defendant and similarly the prayer "d" is directing the defendants 1 and 2 as trustees of the third defendant to conduct further enquires and prayer "e"is to declare that the defendants 1 to 3 have no right whatsoever to appoint any additional trustees and seeking consequent permanent injunction restraining any person claiming to have been appointed by defendants 1 to 3 as Additional Trustee, from claiming or acting as such in any manner as trustee of the third defendant trust. On a perusal of the plaint it is clear that the substantial reliefs sought for by the plaintiffs are against a dead person, who is stated as first defendant in the suit.;