- (1.) The defendant challenges the authority of this Court to receive the suit where the principal relief is for a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant from holding herself out or representing herself to be a trustee of the subject trust. THE defendant claims that the object of the suit is to take control of the trust and, through it, its only property in Madhupur in Jharkhand. THE defendant says that this is a suit for land.
(2.) In her application, the defendant has contended that a trust is an obligation to property and since the property in respect of the subject trust is a land outside jurisdiction, this Court did not have the jurisdiction to receive the suit. The defendant argues that the plaintiffs seek, in effect, to assert title, control, possession and management of the immovable property situated outside jurisdiction and the claim has to be carried to a Court exercising jurisdiction over such immovable property. No other ground is taken in the application. The first eight plaintiffs claim to be the present trustees of the ninth plaintiff trust. The trust was created by a registered deed of March 3, 1990. Though a copy of the relevant instrument has been appended to the plaint, the copy of the plaint that the defendant has included with her petition is one without its annexures. A copy of the deed of trust has been made over by the plaintiffs. Nine settlors established the trust for public charitable purposes and contributed a sum of Rs.5,000/- in 1990. The deed envisages that the trust may receive further sums and properties. The initial office of the trust was at 9, Jagmohan Mullick Lane, Calcutta -700009 and the deed permits the trustees to determine where the office would be situate. The primary object of the trust is to create, establish, maintain and run educational institutions. Eight trustees were appointed by the deed of trust, including the defendant herein. The number of trustees is required to be not less than five or more than fifteen. The trustees are to appoint or nominate any of them as the chairperson and another as the managing trustee, each office having a tenure of five years. The deed named the defendant as the first managing trustee. Clause 32 of the trust deed provides that a trustee may resign from the office or retire by giving a month's notice in writing to the other trustees. The next clause records that a person shall cease to be a trustee, inter alia, if he or she resigns from office. Clause 37 of the deed stipulates that the office of the trustee shall be without profit except to the extent of reimbursement of actual expenses incurred for the purposes and objects of the trust. Clause 43 of the deed makes the provisions of the Indian Trust Act applicable to the trust except to the extent it is repugnant to the contents of the deed.
(3.) In the plaint it is stated that the trust runs a school named after it as the "Madhusthali Vidyapeeth" in Madhupur which is affiliated to the Council for the INdian School Certificate Examination. The case made out in the plaint suggests that the affairs of the school dipped alarmingly between 2003 and 2006. At the relevant time the defendant was the managing trustee and, of the plaintiffs, only the eighth plaintiff was one of the six other trustees. The plaint says that in April, 2006 the eighth plaintiff and the defendant requested the plaintiff Nos. 1 to 7 to become trustees since they were apparently experienced in running schools. It is the plaintiffs' case that simultaneously all the then existing trustees except the eighth plaintiff offered to resign from office. The plaint says that by a notice of May 10, 2006 the defendant, as the managing trustee, convened a meeting of the trust on June 6,2006 for the purpose of considering the resignation of all but one of the existing trustees and the appointment of new trustees. The plaintiff Nos. 1 to 7 are said to have been requested to attend the meeting as invitees. The plaintiffs claim that the meeting of June 6, 2006 was attended by four of the then trustees, including the eighth plaintiff and the defendant, and by the plaintiff Nos. 1 to 7, initially as invitees. According to the plaint, the first seven plaintiffs were unanimously appointed as trustees and the defendant thereafter submitted her letter of resignation as trustee and handed over letters of resignation of the three absentee trustees at such meeting. The two other attending trustees also submitted their individual letters of resignation. The plaint speaks of the letters of resignation of the six trustees, including the defendant, being accepted at the meeting; whereupon they ceased to be trustees of the said trust. The plaintiffs claim that the registered office of the trust was subsequently shifted from Jagmohan Mullick Lane to 11, Brabourne Road, Calcutta - 700001. The plaint seeks to make out that the resolutions passed at the said meeting of June 6,2006 have been acted upon and the individual plaintiffs have brought in substantial funds to the trust. The plaintiffs claim to have applied on behalf of the trust to the State Government in Jharkhand for establishing an engineering collage on the Madhupur land and say that the existing school and its infrastructure have been substantially revamped. The plaintiffs allege that it was only in April, 2007 that the plaintiffs discovered that the defendant was purporting to hold herself out and represent herself as a trustee of this trust. The plaintiffs have instituted the suit with leave under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure by reserving the right to claim other reliefs arising out of a memorandum of understanding between the plaintiffs and some of the erstwhile trustees including the defendant. The first relief claimed is for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from using the old letterhead of the trust where the office of the trust is shown to be 9, Jagmohan Mullick Lane. The second relief is for restraining the defendant from holding herself out or representing herself to be a trustee. The third relief is for discovery on oath of all letters issued and communication made by the defendant subsequent to June 6, 2006 claiming to be a trustee. The defendant refers to the much-used judgment in Moolji Jaitha and Co. v. The Khandesh Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd.,1950 AIR(PC) 83. She relies on what is said to be the common opinion of the Court in that decision that in order to see whether a suit is covered by the expression "suit for land" in clause 12 of the Letters Patent, one has to consider whether the suit is for the purpose of obtaining a direction for possession or a decision on title to land, or the object of the suit is something different but involves the consideration of the question of the title to land indirectly.;