- (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) BY a Deed of Trust dated 5th July, 1978, one kirtilal Manilal Mehta, the late father of Kishor kirtilal Mehta, the appellant No. 1 herein, created a Trust known as Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical trust and appointed Kishor Kirtilal Mehta, mrs. Charu Kishor Mehta the appellant No. 2 and Mrs. Rekha Haresh Sheth, the sister of the appellant no. 1, as Permanent Trustees thereof. The said trust established the Lilavati Hospital which is a highly-reputed hospital in Mumbai and is considered to be one of the best hospitals in india today. Clause 17 of the Trust Deed stipulates that as far as possible only members of the Settlor's family are to be appointed as Trustees. However, the respondent No. 1, Vijay Kirtilal Mehta, the elder brother of the appellant No. 1 and son of the settlor, was neither appointed as a Permanent trustee nor as a Trustee by the Settlor when the trust was created. According to the appellants, it was at the instance of the appellant No. 1 that the respondent No. 1 was appointed as a Trustee on 22nd July, 1990, for a period of five years, as provided under the Trust Deed. The case of the appellants is that since the Trust Deed further stipulates that except for Permanent Trustees all other Trustees could be appointed for a term of five years only and for a maximum of three terms, the respondent No. 1 ceased to be a Trustee after the expiry of the third term on and from 22nd July, 2005. According to the appellants, Mrs. Charu Kishor mehta, the appellant No. 2, thereafter issued a notice on 5th April, 2006, for holding a meeting of the Trustees in order to fill up the vacancy caused by the cessation of the respondent No. 1 as a Trustee of the aforesaid Trust. Mrs. Rekha haresh Sheth did not attend the meeting held on 8th april, 2006, but addressed a letter to the appellant No. 2 through her advocate enclosing a copy of the Minutes of a meeting of the Trust purported to have been held on 22nd July, 1995, wherein Mr. Vijay Kirtilal Mehta, the respondent no. 1, was shown to have been re-appointed as a permanent Trustee. The Minutes also indicated that the appellants, Kishore Kirtilal Mehta and Mrs. Charu Kishore Mehta, had signed the said Minutes. The appellants denied having signed the said minutes and questioned the genuineness of the same and contended that the said Minutes had been fabricated in order to circumvent the Resolution adopted by the Permanent Trustees on 8th April, 2006, declaring the cessation of the trusteeship of the respondent No. 1.
(3.) IN any event, by his letter dated 8th April, 2006 the respondent No. 1 asked the appellant No. 2 not to hold any meeting on 8th April, 2006, pursuant to her notice dated 5th April, 2006. The appellants were also informed that Niket Mehta, son of the respondent No. 1, had been appointed a permanent Trustee and the respondent No. 1 had been re-appointed as a Permanent Trustee. From the materials on record it appears that in regard to the Minutes of the meeting of the trustees allegedly held on 21st July, 1995, a change Report was filed with the office of the assistant Charity Commissioner, Mumbai, on 10th april, 2006, to record the cessation of trusteeship of Prashant Kishore Mehta and the re-appointment of Rajiv Kishore Mehta as Trustee of the above Trust.;