Madras High Court
Compendiously And Concisely The ... vs Unknown on 30 March, 2010
Author: G.Rajasuria
Bench: G.Rajasuria
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30/03/2010 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA OA.No.261 of 2010 A.No.93 of 2010 in C.S.No.849 of 2005 ORDER :
G.RAJASURIA, J.
Compendiously and concisely the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these applications would run thus:-
a) The plaintiffs, namely, G.Swaminathan, V.S.Jagadeesan (now deceased) and M.V.Kandaswamy, (herein after referred to as 'the plaintiffs' for short) filed the suit C.S.No.849 of 2005 as against the nine defendants, of whom, D3 and D5 also died, seeking the following reliefs:
- for a declaration that the decree dated 29.9.95 passed by the High Court in C.S.No.1478 of 1995 by suppressing material facts without disclosing the pending suits, i.e.C.S.No.396/88 and C.S.No.1411/88, without impleading the plaintiffs as parties obtained by the defendants herein is null and void and not binding upon the trust.
- for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any way taking further steps in pursuance of the void decree dated 29.9.1995 especially filing applications based on the decree passed in C.S.No.1478/95, i.e.application No.1681/05 praying as to permit to spend/donate monies of the trust contrary to the direction passed by the High Court in O.S.No.No.91/77 and against the noble intention of the founder, which is affecting the trust and its properties.
- for a declaration that the sale of the trust properties in pursuance of the null and void decree passed in C.S.No.1478/95 are null and void and not valid and binding upon the trust.
- for a decree directing the alienees who are the defendants herein to deliver back the possession of the schedule mentioned trust properties to the trust.
- for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants their agents, men or servants, or any other persons working on their behalf from further alienating the schedule mentioned trust properties by way of sale, mortgage, lease or in any manner whatsoever.
- for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants their agents, men or servants or any other persons working on their behalf from drawing out monies of the trust based on the decree passed in C.S.No.1478/95, obtained by defendant by suppressing material facts.
- for an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants their men, agents, servants, or any other persons working on their behalf from in any way, altering the physical features of the trust properties either by way of demolition or reconstruction or in any other manner whatsoever.
- to direct the defendants to render true and proper accounts of the sale proceeds derived from selling out trust properties.
- for an order and enquiry regarding the transactions illegally alienating the trust properties and to pass an order of surcharging the defendants and for costs.
(extracted as such)
b) The same plaintiffs filed O.A.No.261 of 2010 with the following prayer:
- to appoint an Administrator, by considering the quantum of money involved and the vast extent of properties owned by the trust, to take charge of the trust properties left by the founder; to regulate the lease terms in respect of the properties which are in the hands of lessees; to initiate necessary eviction proceedings against the lessees who are in default and acted contrary to the lease terms; to collect the lease amount and to fix fair rent; to maintain proper accounts; to regulate the income from the trust properties; to obtain necessary exemptions from the statutory corporation to avoid unwanted legal implications; to pay the statutory dues and to deposit the balance income in the banks and to file report periodically to this Court with supporting documents by serving copies for the parties concerned, pending disposal of the suit.
(extracted as such)
c) Counter has been filed by the defendants refuting and challenging the averments/allegations in the application.
d) On the other hand, the defendants filed application No.93 of 2010 with the following prayer:
- to permit the applicants to spend Rs.27,83,348/- for the purpose of helping poor students by meeting out the cost of books and notebooks supplied by the schools and colleges and payment of school/college fees.
(extracted as such)
e) In that application, counter has been filed by the plaintiffs, challenging and impugning the averments/allegations in the application.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The points for consideration are as follows:
(i) Whether an Administrator has to be appointed to take charge of the trust properties left by the founder, to regulate the lease terms in respect of the properties which are in the hands of the lessees, to initiate necessary eviction proceedings against the lessees who are in default and acted contrary to the lease terms, to collect the lease amount and to fix fair rent, to maintain proper accounts, to regulate the income from the trust properties, to obtain necessary exemptions from the statutory corporation to avoid unwanted legal implications, to pay the statutory dues and to deposit the balance income in the banks and to file report periodically to this Court with supporting documents by serving copies for the parties concerned, as prayed for by the plaintiffs?
(ii) Whether the defendants could be permitted to spend Rs.27,83,348/- for the purpose of helping poor students by meeting out the cost of books and notebooks supplied by the schools and colleges and by paying school/college fees, as prayed for, by the defendants?
Points (i) & (ii):
4. Both these points are taken together for discussion as they are interwoven and inter-linked, entwined and interconnected with each other.
5. The tour d'horizon of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs Mr.S.Sathyanarayanan, would run thus:
(i) The defendants mis-managed the Trust properties by alienating the immovable properties and by donating the funds of the society; whereby they now invite on themselves an order from this Court for appointing an administrator to administer the properties of the Trust, pending disposal of the suit;
(ii) The defendants/their predecessor trustees went to the extent of preventing the plaintiffs, so to say the heirs of the founder of the Trust, from functioning as trustees, by raising untenable plea to the effect that the Scheme decree dated 11.3.1932 passed in C.S.No.137 of 1928, more specifically clause 5(f) did not permit, two heirs of the founder belonging to one and the same joint family from being appointed as trustees even though there is no such embargo.
(iii) As such ever since 1984, the heirs of the founder have not been permitted to participate as trustees in managing the properties of the trust.
(iv) The original scheme decree dated 11.03.1932 still holds good and only a slight amendment to the said scheme decree was effected by virtue of the judgement of the Division Bench of this court dated 29.8.1985 passed in O.S.A.No.91 of 1977, by enhancing the number of trustees from 4+1 to 5+2 and nothing more.
(v) Behind the back of the heirs of the founder of the trust, so to say, the plaintiffs, the defendants went to the extent of filing C.S.No.1478 of 1995 in this court and got amended/modified the said scheme decree by way of incorporating new objects quite antithetical to the original objects as found set out in the testator's trust deed as well as in the scheme decree;
(vi) By way of adding fuel to the fire as on the date of filing of the said suit, C.S.No.1478 of 1995, two other suits, namely, C.S.Nos.1411 and 398 of 1988 were filed by the plaintiffs herein relating to the same trust, alleging mismanagement on the part of the defendants herein.
(vii) As such, it is glaringly and palpably clear that the defendants, keeping the plaintiffs in the dark, are in the habit of getting things done so as to dominate the trust by themselves.
(viii) This Court vide order dated 30.4.2006 in O.A.Nos.947, 948 and A.No.4337 of 2005 mandated to the effect that the defendants shall not spend more than Rs.25,000/- at a time and if they are in need of spending any more amount, they should necessarily approach this Court and get orders. Over and above that this Court also mandated that the immovable properties of the trust shall not be alienated. But throwing to winds the said order passed by this Court, the defendants sold away the immovable properties of the trust and also spent huge amounts and thereby committed contempt of Court.
(ix) The plaintiffs herein after coming to know of the contempt committed by the defendants filed two contempt petitions, namely, Cont.Petn.Nos.70 and 71 of 2009, in which this Court ordered some of the defendants herein to pay certain amounts to the charity.
(x) It is therefore plainly and pellucidly clear that the defendants are not managing the trust properties incommensurate with the spirit of the scheme decree and also the order passed by this court and as such appointment of administrator is an absolute necessity.
(xi) Pending the suit filed by the plaintiffs, if as prayed for by the defendants the amounts are allowed to be spent for educational purposes as per the said modified objects of the trust, then it would amount to the dismissal of the plaintiffs suit itself, wherefore this Court may not allow the said application No.93 of 2010 filed by defendants.
6. Per contra, by way of torpedoing and pulverising the arguments as put forth on the side of the plaintiffs, the learned counsel for the defendants would set forth and put forth his arguments, which would tersely and briefly run thus:
(a) Absolutely, there is no mismanagement on the part of the defendants, as the trust properties were alienated only as per the order of the court.
(b) Several tenants/lessees of the lands belonging to the trust, approached this court and filed separate applications in C.S.No.137 of 1928 and obtained orders, for which the defendants were not at all responsible. In fact, they filed their counters also as against those applications. As such, they were not unilateral acts on the part of the defendants in alienating those properties.
(c) The defendants at no point of time had the intention to disobey the order of this court dated 13.4.2006 passed in O.A.Nos.947 and 948 of 2005 and A.No.4337 of 2005. However, the learned senior counsel Mr.Sampath Kumar, who appeared for the defendants in those applications concerned did not intimate the said order, whereby the defendants herein were not aware of the fact that they should not alienate the immovable properties or they should not spend any amount more than Rs.25,000/- at a time.
(d) In the contempt petitions also the defendants herein expounded and explained the position and only some contributions were ordered to be made by some of the defendants to the trust.
(e) The defendants did not intend to get any order for the modification of the objects of the trust, behind the back of the plaintiffs.
(f) As per the procedure prevailing at that time, civil suit should be filed by the trustees for getting the objects amended or modified and only in accordance with that alone C.S.No.1478 of 1995 was filed by the then trustees and got the objects amended; consequently, it will not lie in the mouth of the plaintiffs to utter out that those modified objects cannot be implemented.
(g) During the pendency of this suit, if the defendants are throttled or prevented from implementing the modified objects, then it would amount to decreeing now itself, the suit of the plaintiffs and if several years' time is taken for the disposal of the suit, then the defendants would not be able to spend the money for benevolent purposes.
(h) Earlier the plaintiffs made attempts to get an administrator/Receiver appointed, but this court rejected it and as of now, absolutely, there is no ground for getting an Administrator appointed.
(i) Only with benevolent intention, the defendants gathered the names and particulars of the beneficiaries. During the academic year 2009-2010, they intended to provide those beneficiaries with books, note books and school fees /college fees and that too because they are poor people, which group includes the people belonging to Sozhia Vellalar community and in such a case, the plaintiffs cannot raise their accusative finger as against the defendants and aver anything accusatively.
(j) It is the plaintiffs own making that they have chosen not to become trustees and they have not got elected two trustees among themselves, for the purpose of participating in the management of the trust.
Accordingly, the learned counsel prays for allowing the A.No.93 of 2010 filed by the defendants and for dismissing the O.A.No.261 of 2010 filed by the plaintiffs for appointment of an Administrator.
7. Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely, the admitted and incontrovertible facts are set out here under:
The following are the particulars relating to the various suits filed in connection with the Trust called 'Sri Vysarpadi Vinayaka Mudaliar Trust':
(i) C.S.No.97 of 1918; This is the earliest suit whereby a Scheme was settled by this Court and it is also clarified that even earlier to it, there was suit and for the present purpose, details concerning the earlier suit are not relevant.
(ii) C.S.No.137 of 1928; whereby the Scheme Decree was modified;and
(iii) C.S.No.213 of 1951; as per which certain directions were given by the court. In connection with that decree alone, auditor's reports are being filed.
(iv) C.S.No.39 of 1970 was for removal of trustees, as against the judgment in that suit, O.S.A.No.91 of 1977 was filed and in that the Division Bench of this Court passed orders enhancing the number of Trustees from 4 + 1 to 5 + 2 on consent of both sides.
8. At this juncture, it is just and necessary to elaborate to the effect that earlier as per the Scheme Decree passed by this Court, there should be totally five trustees and out of them one should necessarily be from among the heirs of the founder of the trust and the remaining four trustees shall be from the community people, so to say 'Sozhia Vellalar' community.
9. Indubitably and indisputably, the said 5+2 = 7 number of trustees were managing the Trust properties up to 1984. Thereafter, once again dispute arose among them and till today, only five members belonging to the said community, namely, Sozhia Vellalar community have been managing the Trust and the two trustees, who are expected to be from among the heirs of the founder have not been forming part of the management at all ever since 1984.
10. Subsequently, C.S.Nos.396 and 1411 of 1988 were filed by the plaintiffs, seeking the following reliefs:
C.S.No.396 of 1988: -
- Whether the trust Deed dated 17.6.1851 executed by Sri Vyasarpadi Vinayaga Mudaliar permanently excludes the heirs of the founder from the exclusive management of the Trust. If not, suitable direction be given to constitute a committee among heirs of the founder to manage the charities mentioned in the Trust Deed.
- In view of the recitals in the Trust Deed that income of the properties comprised in R.S.No.196, Nungambakkam (Near Valluvarkottam formed as house sites) and in Door No.247, N.S.C.Bose Road are set apart for the maintenance of choultry at No.22, South Mada Street, Mylapore and for the performance of the charities, what is the character of those properties?
- Whether the defendant-Trustees of Sri Vyasarpadi Vinayaga Mudaliar Charities are holding the properties disclosed in previous question in Trust for the heirs of the founder, and if so, whether those properties may be handed over to the plaintiffs trustees as heirs of the founders;
- Whether the trustees are entitled to encumber or alienate in whatsoever manner any of the properties or portion thereof in view of the little scope for the performance of Dwadasi feeding of Brahmins and Brahmotsavam expenses;
- In view of the specific recitals in the Deed of Trust as to the management of Trust by the heirs and descendants of the founder Sri Vyasarpadi Vinayaga Mudaliar, even at times of dispute among heirs, whether the defendants as trustees holding office by virtue of judgment of this Court are entitled to object for the management of trust by heirs of the founder exclusively;
- whether the scheme framed by this Court in C.S.No.137 of 1928 as modified in O.S.A.No.91 of 1977 for the management of Trust created by Sri Vyasarpadi Vinayaga Mudaliar can be allowed to supercede permanently the positive directions contained in the Trust Deed as to the management of Trust by the heirs of the founder.
- for a direction as to the operation of Scheme Decree in C.S.No.137 of 1928 as modified upto O.S.A.No.91 of 1977 to incorporate the recitals of the Trust Deed as to the exclusive management of the trust by heirs of the founder.
- for directions as to the scope of performance charities in terms of monthly expenses from the rental income of the choultry premises at No.22, South Mada Street, Mylapore, Madras 600 004 and from such other sums as may be separate from available fixed deposits of the trust.
- for directions as to the nature of dedication of property for choultry and of the charge created for spending income from other two items of properties.
- for directions as to the apportionment of the properties, which is sufficient and necessary for performance of charities.
- for directions as to scope of charge on the properties comprised in Door No.247, N.S.C.Bose Road, Madras 600 001 and R.S.No.196, Nungambakkam Village and
- for directions as to the leases granted by the ex-trustees pertaining to 66 plots measuring about one and a half ground each in R.S.No.196, Nungambakkam village the income of which alone is separate for the performance of charities.
(extracted as such) C.S.No.1411 of 1988:
- to modify the scheme decree of Sri Vyasarpadi Vinayaka Mudaliar Charities, Mylapore as given in the Annexure to this plaint.
- to direct the Board of Trustees of Sri Vyasarpadi Vinayaka Mudaliar Charities, Mylapore to preserve and protect the properties of the said Charitable Trust more fully described in the schedule here under to the plaint and for costs.
(extracted as such) and those suits according to both sides herein are still pending. It is also a fact to be noted here that C.S.No.1478 of 1995 was filed by the defendants herein without adding the plaintiffs herein and obtained modification of the Scheme.
11. In the present suit earlier O.A.Nos.947 and 948 of 2005 and A.No.4337 of 2005 were filed and in that this Court passed the order dated 13.04.2006, the operative portion of it would run thus:
"4. After hearing both sides, the Court feels that it is a fit case where interim injunction has got to be granted restraining the defendants from alienating or encumbering the Trust properties which are in the hands of the Trustees as on today. So far as the properties which were sold are concerned, it is matter to be decided whether the decree passed in C.S.No.1478/95 is null and void and it would not bind on the plaintiffs as urged by them or as urged by the defendants.
5. The Court is of the considered opinion that the rest of the properties of the Trust have got to be preserved. Hence, as an interim measure, pending disposal of the suit, interim injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or encumbering the trust properties which are in the hands of the Trust, as on today, is granted.
6. So far as Application No.948/2005 is concerned, according to the learned counsel for defendants, Rs.7 crores and odd are in the bank deposit. Under such circumstances, the Court is of the considered opinion that the present trustees can withdraw Rs.25,000/- per month from the Bank deposit for carrying on the trust affairs and accordingly, the same is ordered. Regarding further expenditure, the defendants have to move this Court by filing an application in the instant suit.
7. So far as application No.4337 of 2005 is concerned, it is brought to the notice of the court by the learned counsel for the defendants that an Auditor has been appointed and the accounts of the Trust are being audited and they are ready to place the accounts before the Court. Therefore, the defendants/ respondents are directed to produce the accounts maintained in the past along with the Auditor's report before the court within a period of three months herefrom for the perusal of this court and the defendants are also directed to furnish the copy of the accounts along with the Auditor's report to the plaintiffs."
as against which, with delay O.S.A.Nos.358, 359 and 360 of 2009 were filed and the Division Bench passed order, the operative portion of it would run thus:
"9. Therefore, even Scheme Decree visualised certain control with regard to fluid cash in the hands of the trustee. The Scheme Decree was passed in the year 1932. Therfore, the learned Single Judge has ordered that the Trustees shall withdraw Rs.25,000/- for carrying on the trust affairs. If there is reason for incurring extra expenses for purchase of books and note books for children, prior to the commencement of Academic year, then those applications can be moved well in advance so that this object can also be achieved."
(emphasis supplied) Thereafter only the plaintiffs have chosen to file the application OA.261 of 2010 for appointment of Administrator and the defendants have filed the aforesaid A.No.93 of 2010 seeking permission to spend money for rendering educational assistance.
12. At this juncture, I would like to discuss the various contentious issues raised by the plaintiffs.
13. No doubt, the founder as found set out in his trust deed - neither the original nor a copy of it is readily available now, but the gist and kernel of it is found set out in the judgment dated 24.01.1975 in C.S.No.39 of 1970 of this Court - intended certain benevolent acts to be performed from out of income of his properties.
14. I would like to extract here under the portion of the said judgment containing the narration of facts, for ready reference:
" This is a suit filed under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the removal of certain trustees of the Vinayaka Mudaliar Charities for modification of a scheme, for vesting the properties of the charity in new trustees and for other reliefs. One Vinayaka Mudaliar and a resident of Mylapore. He was a self-made man. On 17.6.1861- he executed a deed of trust (Ex.D-34) which was registered and under which he endowed a house on the South Mada Street, Mylapore as a choultry. The purposes for which the choultry was to be used were to feed Brahmins on every Dwadasi day and for performing Deeparadhana to the deities taken out during the festival of Sri Kapaleeswarar in Mylapore. In order to secure the necessary recurring funds a shop in China Bazaar Road and a grove in Nungambakkam were set apart. It was stated in the trust deed that the trust was intended mainly to benefit Sholia Vellala community to which the found belonged. The objects of the trust have also been inscribed in stone in the year 1852. The contents of the stone inscription are to be found in Ex.D-49 and also P-5. He executed a Will on 19.12.1860, which is Ex.D1 in which he has reiterated the dedication of the properties for the charity mentioned above. He had 3 sons and he declared in the Trust deed that he would be the trustee during his life time and that thereafter his brothers and the descendants of his and brothers would look after the charity. The accounts of the charity were to be rendered monthly to Periadana-Muniappa Mudaliar and other relations. In case the trust was not administered properly, then the Nattars and the Periadanakarar and relations were to administer the charity."
(extracted as such)
15. Incontrovertibly and unassailably, the earlier object of the trust was only to feed Brahmins and to do Dheebaradhana during festival season in the well known Kapaleeswarar Temple, Chennai. Even while the Division Bench of this Court passing the order dated 29.8.1985 in O.S.A.No.91 of 1977 enhancing the number of trustees from five to seven, the objects were not modified.
16. At this context, it is worthwhile to refer to the relevant portion of the Scheme Decree in C.S.No.137 of 1928 and it is extracted here under for ready reference:
SCHEME Name: 1. The Charity shall be known by the name of Sri Vinayaka Mudaliar Charities, Mylapore.
Objects of the Choultry:
2. The objects of the said charity are:-
i. feeding of Brahmins on Dwadesi days, in the choultry at Mylapore, belonging to the charity.
ii. Celebrations in the choultry premises at Mylapore including lighting, during the Brahmostava days at Mylapore of Sri Kapaleeswarar.
iii. Offering Dipardhana to Sri Kapaleeswar at the Choultry premises on every occasion when Sri Kapaleeswarar is taken in procession in front of the premises.
iv. Maintenance and preservation of the charity properties.
3. The monies of the charity shall be utilised solely for the objects of the charity as aforesaid and shall not be utilised for any other purposes whatsoever or for any other charitable or religious objects.
Management:-
4. There shall be a Board of five trustees for the said charity.
5. No one shall be eligible to be a trustee
(a) who does not belong to the Sozhia Vellala community (b) who is under 21 years of age (c) who has been convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude (d) who is an undischarged insolvent (e) who is suffering from unsoundness of mind or other physical defects as to unfit him for work or (f) who is member of a joint family of which some other members is at the time a trustee.
6. One of the Trustees shall be an agnatic male descendant of Vinayaka Mudaliar (the founder of the charity) residing at Mylapore, and he shall be elected by the agnatic male descendants of Vinayaka Mudaliar. The maid person shall hold office for a term of five years. If there happen to be no agnatic male descendant eligible as trustee, then the members of the founder's family (including cognates) may elect one among themselves as trustees.
7. The remaining four trustee shall be elected by the Thondaimandalam Sozhia Vellala Marabhu Dharma Sangam, Clause 5(f) shall not prevent the Sangam from electing a member of the same joint family, from which the trustee is elected under Clause (6). The said four trustees shall hold office for a period of three years.
8. A person who ceases to be a trustee on the expiry of the term of his office will be eligible for re-election.
9. If any trustees should, during the continuance of his Trusteeship, become at any time disqualified to a trustee within a meaning of Clause (5) supra, he shall cease to be a trustee.
10. Any vacancy caused in the Board of Trustee shall be filled within three months of the vacancy.
11. The trustee shall appoint among themselves a Secretary and Treasurer, who shall hold office for one year, but shall be eligible for re-election.
12. Subject to the provisions herein contained and the rules that may be framed from time to time under the scheme, the Board shall transact all business and determine all questions by resolution to be passed as its meetings. No expenditure shall be incurred without the previous sanction of the Board at a meeting duly convened for the passing of such expenditure.
13. The decision on any matter shall be according to the majority of the votes of the trustees. The Chairman of the meeting shall have the casting vote.
14. The Board shall meet at least once in every month at a place to be fixed by them.
17. Subsequently, this Court passed order dated 29.08.1995 in O.S.A.No.91 of 1977 and the operative portion of it would run thus:
"Now the parties agree for a modification of the Scheme in the following manner.
Since the term of office of defendants 1 to 5 has already over, there is no need for removing them. In clause 4 of the scheme decree in O.S.No.137 of 1928 instead of the work 'five' the work 'Seven' will have to be substituted so that the clause as amended will now read there shall be a Board of seven trustees for the said Charity", in clause 6, instead of one trustee from the founder's family, it should be stated on "2 trustees" from the founder's family so that the new clause will now read as two of the trustees shall be agnatio male descendants of Vinayaka Mudaliar, the founder of Charity residing in Mylapore and they shall be elected by the agnatio male descendants of Vinayaka Mudaliar. The said two trustees shall hold office for a term of five years from the date of their respective elections. If there happens to be no aganatio male descendants eligible to be trustees, then the members of the founder's family including cognates may elect one or both of the trustees from among themselves as trustees under this clause. For the word "four" in clause 7, the word 'Five' will have to be substituted so that the amended clause will read new as "the remaining five trustees shall be elected by the Tondamandalam Sozhia Vellala Marabu Tharma Sangam. Clause 5 (f) shall not prevent the Sangam from electing a member of the same joint family from which the trustees are elected under clause 6. The said five trustees shall hold office for a period of three years from the date of their respective elections.
Subject to the above modification, the scheme decree in O.S.No.137 of 1928 will have full force and effect."
(emphasis supplied)
18. It is just and necessary to refer to the admitted document viz., the copy of the letter dated 30.09.1985 sent by the defendants to the plaintiffs. The pith and marrow of the said letter is that the defendants virtually rejected the offer of the two male descendants of the founder of the trust, namely Swaminathan and Kandaswamy (the plaintiffs herein) to be trustees on the ground that as per clause 5(f) of the Scheme referred to supra both the plaintiffs belonged to one and the same family and that they could not participate in the management of the Trust.
19. The learned counsel for the defendants would vociferously and strenuously argue that the said clause 5(f), despite modification of the Scheme as per the order of the Division Bench of this Court, is squarely applicable as against the heirs of the founder and that the defendants were justified in sending their communication.
20. Whereas, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs would submit that absolutely there is no embargo for two persons belonging to the same family of the founder to be trustees and the said embargo as contained in clause 5(f) is applicable only to Sozhia Vellalar Community people other than the heirs of the founder member.
21. From a mere poring over and perusal of the clauses as found in the earlier Scheme Decree in C.S.No.97/1918 and the modified scheme decree in C.S.No.137 of 1928, it is crystal clear, and also obvious and axiomatic that there is no embargo at all for two male heirs of one and the same family of the founder member to be two trustees in the management. Earlier, as per the Scheme Decree in C.S.No.97 of 1918, 4+1 was contemplated and at that point of time, the question of two members belonging to the same family of the founder does not arise, because only one member from among the heirs of the founder was contemplated. Wherefore, as per clause 7 of the Scheme referred to supra, the embargo was that there should not be among the four trustees two trustees from one and the same family of Sozhia Vellalar community. After modification, as per the said Division Bench's order, the member of trustees got increased to 5+2 and the Court reiterated that clause 5(f) shall not be applicable for electing the two trustees from among the members of the same joint family of the founder under Clause 6. Earlier under clause 6, only one trustee was elected and the question of clause 5(f) being applied did not arise at all, and after such modification of enhancing one trustee to two trustees from among the heirs of the founder, it was clarified by the Division Bench that Clause 5(f) shall not applied to election under Clause 6.
22. In the judgement in O.S.A.Nos.358, 359 and 360 of 2009, while modifying the Scheme, clearly and categorically without minching words, their Lordships of the Division Bench used the words 'trustees' in plural relating to Clause (6) and by that their Lordships held that under Clause 6 only, heirs of the family members could be elected and for them the embargo as per Clause 5(f), shall not be applicable. As such, it is crystal clear that the embargo contained in clause 5(f) does not operate concerning the election conducted under Clause 6 for electing the two trustees from among the founder's descendants out of the seven trustees. In such a case, I could see no rhyme or reason on the part of the defendants in simply sending that communication dated 30.09.1985 and from that time onwards only the plaintiffs could not participate in the Management as trustees.
23. The five trustees of the defendants' group cannot assume and presume that they are the Managing committee or some such thing and treat the other two trustees as though they are co-opted members. Here there is no such post called managing trustee and all the seven trustees are having equal powers and in such a case, once the descendants of the founder had communicated to the defendants that they were elected as the two trustees from among the heirs of the founder, the then trustees of the defendants' group were not justified in sending such communication. Even if the defendants had any doubt about the validity of the trusteeship of Swaminathan and Kandaswamy(the plaintiffs), then they should have approached the Court challenging the election of those two persons. Unilaterally the defendants were not justified at all in sending such a communication assuming themselves as though they were the Managing Committee and that the heirs of the founder are strangers. As such, in my considered opinion, the defendants should not have sent such a communication on 30.09.1985 and deprived the plaintiffs of their right to participate in the Management as Trustees.
24. The learned counsel for the defendants would argue that nothing prevented the plaintiffs in approaching the court even in the year 1985 or immediately thereafter by way of challenging the said letter dated 30.09.1985 and asserting their own rights as the trustees.
25. Such an argument cannot be countenanced and upheld for the reason that the defendants cannot have priority or superiority over the plaintiffs by posing themselves as though they are the persons constituting the management and that the plaintiffs could only acquire trusteeship at their discretion. As such, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiffs were unable to participate in the management, because of the exfacie and prima facie wrong communication sent by the defendants' group on 30.09.1985.
26. It would not be out of place to point out that there are laches on the part of the plaintiffs also. No doubt the plaintiffs filed subsequently, as highlighted supra, two suits i.e C.S.Nos.396 and 1411 of 1988, but curiously they have not chosen to petition this Court either in the said suits filed by them or in this suit for conducting election under Clause (6) of the said Scheme, so as to enable two of the heirs of the founder to become trustees.
27. Similarly, the defendants also were not justified in simply carrying on with the management of the trust without having the two trustees from the founder's family. The defendants at least could have petitioned this Court seeking direction to conduct election under clause (6). As such, it is clear that on one side the Sozhia Vellalar community-the defendants group and on the other side the heirs of the founder family-the plaintiffs group started accusing each other and because of that alone, the rift got widened and there is a cleavage and bottomless abyss in the relationship between them.
28. To the risk of repetition and pleonasm but, without being tautalogous, I would like to point out that even as on this date neither of the parties filed any application to get the election conducted under clause (6) for the purpose of electing those two trustees from among the heirs of the founder. But on the other hand, the plaintiffs now also interested only in filing this application for appointment of an administrator by making certain allegations as against the defendants.
29. I recollect and call up the maxim 'remedy should not be worse than the disease.'
30. The plaintiffs as of now do feel as though appointment of the administrator would solve all the problems erupting in the trust, but in my considered opinion that would not be the solution. Once administrator is appointed, the consequences are that the administrator will have to take over the entire management as well as the trust properties and that he has to manage them and he should also see that the election under clause (6) is conducted and the two trustees from the founder family are elected and made to participate in the administration. If the circumstances are such that the Court itself could directly order for the conduct of the election under clause (6) for electing two members from among the heirs of the founder, then the matter would be over and the seven trustees can proceed with the management of the trust.
31. One cannot expect that perpetually the administrator should run the trust and that is not the object of the trust or law. The purpose of appointing administrator is to see that properly elected trustees are forming part of the management of the trust and they are functioning.
32. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs would submit that even though the defendants are under the banner of 'Thondaimandalam Sozhia Marabhu Dharma Sangam' that Sangam itself is a defunct one and not valid.
33. The plaintiffs are also having a Sangam called 'Sri Vyasarpadi Vinayaga Mudaliar Dharma Paripalana Sangam'.
34. I would like to point out that this Court is not concerned very much with the very said Sangams. But on the other hand if either of the parties is not satisfied with the functioning of either one of the Sangams, it is open for either of them to file application and get conducted the elections for electing the seven trustees.
35. It is an admitted fact that those two Sangams are not virtually representing 5 + 2 trustees respectively, but those trustees are elected from among the heirs of the founder. At one point of time the learned counsel for the defendants also would point out that there is no embargo for even the heirs of the founder to be trustees among the five trustees and as of now, this Court is not seized of such an issue.
36. Be that as it may, my above observations would clearly indicate and exemplify that both the plaintiffs and the defendants have not made appropriate approach to see that the trust is managed by seven trustees properly. It is therefore just and necessary on the part of this Court at this juncture to direct both the plaintiffs and the defendants to take appropriate steps in the right direction.
37. In order to justify the plaintiffs' prayer for appointment of an administrator, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs would place reliance on the typed set of papers filed by the defendants and in that a list of the trust properties sold are found detailed and delineated. There are as many as 54 sales effected by the defendants as per the order of the Court. The concerned details are also found set out in the list.
38. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs would submit that those sales statistics would display and demonstrate, express and expatiate that the defendants, without having any regard for preserving the trust, simply allowed the third parties to purchase the trust properties for meagre price and that itself would indicate that an administrator could rightly be appointed, as there was mis-management on the part of the defendants' group.
39. Whereas, the learned counsel for the defendants would submit that none of those sales were effected voluntarily and independently by the defendants and only the lessees/tenants approached the Court and obtained orders.
40. At this juncture, I would like to point out that this is a very serious matter, which should be gone into only at the time of trial. No doubt, ex facie and prima facie those sales were effected as per the orders of the Court. The deep point involved is as to whether the defendants discharged their duties as trustees in preserving the trust properties or not.
41. It is one thing to argue that the Court passed orders and it was accepted by the trustees and it is yet another thing to argue that the trustees should have taken steps to resist such applications to see that such orders are not obtained by those tenants or at least the trustees should have filed appeals as against such orders, so as to preserve the trust properties. At this juncture, what I would like to point out is that the contention raised by the plaintiffs cannot simply be brushed aside as baseless and unworthy of being considered. Certainly in depth, during trial these points raised by the plaintiffs should be considered.
42. Similarly, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, by inviting the attention of this Court to the sale effected as per the Court order dated 5.4.2007 in Ej.Appeal No.1 of 2006, would develop his argument that the defendants were not justified in simply allowing such sale to be effected by endorsing no objection before the said Court. An excerpt from the said judgment would run thus:
". . . . In this case, the respondent has no objection in permitting the petitioner admittedly who is the owner of the superstructure to purchase the land in her occupation on the guideline value prevailing at the present rate. The petitioner have filed the copy of guideline value for the properties situate at Valluvar Kottam High Road in which it is noted that the guideline value per sq.feet is Rs.2562/-. Both the appellant and the respondent agreed that the guideline value can be fixed at Rs.2794/- which is the rate prevailing at present. The extent of land fixed by the Advocate Commissioner which is in actual possession of the appellant is 3630 sq.feet. The appellant is willing to purchase the property and pay to the respondent/trust the amount fixed by the Court on the basis of the guideline value. In the scheme decree, as the Honourable High Court, Madras has permitted the owners of the superstructure to purchase the land who were placed in similar position, the appellant can also be permitted to purchase the landed property for which the respondent also agrees. As agreed by both the parties the value of the property which is in actual possession of the appellant is fixed as Rs.3630 x 279 = Rs.1,01,42,220/- as per the guideline value."
43. At this juncture, I would like to refer to Section 3 (f)(A) and (B) of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 and it is extracted here under for ready reference:
"3. This Act shall apply:-
(a) ............................................................................
(b) ............................................................................
[ Provided that nothing contained in this Act shall apply to tenancies of land owned -
a)..........................................................................
b)...........................................................................
c)..........................................................................
d)..........................................................................
e)..........................................................................
f) by any religious institution or religious charity belonging to Hindu, Muslim, Christian or other religion.
Explanation: For the purpose of this clause (A) "religious institution" means any
(i) Temple;
(ii) Math;
(iii) Mosque;
(iv) Church or;
(v) Other place by Whatever name known which is dedicated to, or for the benefit of, or used as of right by, any community or section thereof as a place of public religious workshop.
(B) 'RELIGIOUS CHARITY" means a public charity associated with a religious festival or observance of religious character (including a Wakf associated with a religious festival or observance of religious character), whether it is connected with any religious institution or not".
Every proceedings instituted by a tenant in respect of any land owned by any religious institution or religious charity belonging to Hindu, Muslim, Christian or other religion and pending before any court or other authority or officer on the date of the publication of this Act in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazetter shall, in so far as the proceeding relates to any matter falling within the scope of principal Act, as amended by this Act, in respect of such land, abate, and all rights and privileges which may have accrued to that tenant in respect of any such land and subsisting immediately before the said date shall in so far as such rights and privileges relate to any matter falling within the scope of the principal Act, as amended by this Act, cease and determine and shall not be enforceable.
Provided that nothing contained in the section shall be deemed to invalidate any suit or proceedings in which a decree or order passed has been executed or satisfied in full before the said date.
[Provided further that nothing contained, in this Act shall apply to tenancies of land vested or deemed to be vested in, or acquired by, the Board of Trustees of the Port of Madras under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 (Central Act XXXVIII of 1963)]."
44. Ex facie and prima facie it is clear that the provisions of the said Act are not applicable to the tenants in occupation of the properties of the religious institutions or religious charities or religious trust. It would not be out of place to point out that the trust involved in this case is having religious fervour and this point also should have been considered by the defendants before endorsing no objection in the said proceedings. I make it clear that as of now, I do not give any final finding relating to the validity or otherwise of such sales, but what I would like to highlight is that the plaintiffs' objections cannot be brushed aside as baseless or unworthy of being probed into. As such, during the trial and at the appropriate stage, those points should be gone into in depth.
45. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs also by inviting the attention of this court to the factum of the defendants having donated a sum of Rs.20 lakhs to Alamathi Government Higher Secondary School to put up super structure in the name of the founder, would submit that such a donation and for that matter, the aforesaid sale effected as per the order of the City Civil court dated 5.4.2007 were all in violation of the order of this Court dated 13.4.2006 passed in O.A.Nos.947, 948 and A.No.4337 of 2005, referred to supra.
46. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs also would submit that on guideline value simply those properties were sold and normally no one would sell the property for the guideline value. Whereas the learned counsel for the defendants would submit that the court, only after taking into consideration the meagre income derived from the trust properties, resorted to such guideline value and ordered for sale of those properties. Be that as it may, these are all matters which should be necessarily probed into during trial.
47. The contention on the side of the defendants that the learned Senior counsel Mr.Sampath Kumar did not inform the then trustees of the defendants' group the order dated 13.4.2006 referred to supra is a matter to be probed into in depth, during trial, as normally it is well settled that in a contested matter once order is passed, the parties concerned are deemed to be having knowledge of the order passed therein and what transpired between the said advocate and his client would not matter. Be that as it may, all these things should be probed into in depth, at the appropriate stage later.
48. A question might arise as to why then this court should not appoint an Administrator in view of the aforesaid alleged irregularities highlighted by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. As observed by me supra, it has to be seen as to whether appointment of an Administrator would solve the problem.
49. Considering the pro et contra, in my considered view, if Administrator is appointed certainly it would further complicate the matter and it would also get postponed the formation of the management committee comprised of seven trustees in total.
50. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs at one point of time, even went to the extent of pointing out that Administrator could be appointed and simultaneously, the five trustees also could assist him, pending formation of the proper management committee comprising of seven trustees.
51. Both the administrator and the five trustees if allowed to function at one and the same time, in whatever manner, certainly, that would worsen the problem and it would amount to a person riding two horses.
52. The need of the hour is that under clause 6 of the scheme, two trustees should be elected and they should also be allowed to participate along with the five trustees. If there are any irregularities in the election of those five trustees out of the seven trustees, then either of the parties can also file application for conducting proper election for electing the five trustees and within a short time, all the seven trustees can function in full swing and only those seven trustees would be in a position to take binding decisions. Even if there would be any rift in taking decisions, they should approach the court and get the approval of the court for implementing the decisions or remedying the controversy in taking the decisions.
53. The learned counsel for the defendants also without the risk of contradiction from the other side would submit that till date, audited accounts are filed in court as per the directions in C.S.No.213 of 1951.
54. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that as of now, appointment of an Administrator is not necessary. Accordingly, the Point No.1 is decided as against the plaintiffs and the application for appointment of Administrator has to be dismissed.
55. The learned counsel for the defendants would implore and entreat, pray and request that the trust is having huge money and even interests are accruing from the bank deposits and as such part of the amount could rightly be used for the welfare of the students and that would be inconcinnity with the object and more specifically the amended object of the said trust, for which the learned counsel for the plaintiffs would vehemently oppose on the ground that as per the scheme decree dated 11.3.1932 passed by this court, providing educational assistance, in the form of issuing free text books, note books and paying fees, is not at all contemplated. He would also submit that the defendants could have very well thought of acquiring fresh properties with the income derived but they have not chosen to do so and that they are trying to siphon off the funds of the trust by this dubious scheme of educational assistance.
56. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs also would contend that the said amended scheme dated 29.9.1995 passed in C.S.No.1478 of 1995 is not at all valid and it is under challenge in this suit and in such a case, if any one of the objects of the modified scheme is implemented, it would amount to the very dismissal of this suit itself.
57. At this juncture, I would like to point out that this Court has to strike a balance between the two. According to the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, if pending this suit, this Court grants permission for sending money for distribution of text books and notebooks and also for giving fees etc to the students, it would amount to dismissal of the suit itself.
58. I would like to point out that such an argument is a far fetched one. This Court vide order dated 29.9.1995 in C.S.No.1478 of 1995 modified the object of the trust. Simply because the present suit has been filed challenging the earlier judgment of this Court that it does not mean that a blanket stay has to be given with respect to the operation of the earlier judgment of this Court. But one point is clear that the defendants ex facie and prima facie were not justified in proceeding with the said suit C.S.No.1478 of 1995 without highlighting the facts about the pendency of the two suits viz., C.S.Nos.396 and 1411 of 1988.
59. The learned counsel for the defendants would unconvincingly try to explain and expound, clarify and highlight that the said C.S.No.1478 of 1995 was not by way of a regular contestable suit but only by way of getting an order from this Court for proper administration of the trust and adversarial proceedings were not contemplated.
60. In the normal circumstances what the learned counsel for the defendants state is correct, but as on the date of the filing of the suit C.S.No.1478 of 1995, the defendants on the one side and the plaintiffs on the other side were at logger heads and they could not see eye to eye and that each group was trying to cut the ground under the feet of the other and in such a case when the defendants alone have chosen to get the object of the scheme modified, necessarily they should have highlighted about the pendency of the suit and they should have put the plaintiffs on notice about the said suit C.S.No.1478 of 1995.
61. I would like to once again point out that I do not decide conclusively that the defendants were at fault in not adding the plaintiffs as parties in that suit C.S.No.1478 of 1995, but these are all matters, which are worthy of being probed further in order to decide the suit.
62. The question arises as to why then, this Court should permit the defendants to carry out such amended object. The very trust itself is for charitable purpose. Extending educational assistance to the poor and needy is in no way less noble than feeding the brahmins or doing poojas in the temple. I would like to point out that rendering educational assistance to the poor people if not higher than those two objects, it is certainly on par with those objects and cypres doctrine could rightly be pressed into service.
63. The learned counsel for the defendants also would point out that for feeding brahmins alone in the present day context, huge amount might not be required and while feeding the brahmins, the poor and the down trodden also can be helped with educational assistance.
64. The aforesaid argument, as of now, finds favour with this Court and the objection raised on the side of the plaintiffs fails to carry conviction with this court. If pending disposal of the suit, educational assistance inconcinnity with and in pari materia with and inconsonance with the amended objects, is not rendered then those beneficiaries so to say, those poor students would once and for all lose in their lives the said assistance and they cannot be compensated in any other way and that also has to be seen. It is not as though by passing this interim order this Court dismisses the suit itself, as argued by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs; wherefore by way of striking a balance between the two, I would like to order that educational assistance inconcinnity with the amended object could be ordered by this Court, pending disposal of the suit.
65. However, in view of the apprehension raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that the funds of the trust might be siphoned off by the defendants in their favour, this Court could ensure fair play by appointing an Advocate Commissioner to implement the said programme of educational assistance and it should also be audited by a competent auditor, which would be a proper safe guard. Because of certain apprehensions existing in the mind of the plaintiffs, the good and genuine proposal for educational assistance cannot be pooh-poohed or belittled or slighted or brushed aside.
66. There should be a proper proposal at the first instance for rendering such educational assistance. During the hearing of this application itself, when this Court raised the query as to whether there is any proper criteria in the form of resolution for rendering educational assistance, the learned counsel for the defendants made a supine submission that there was no such criteria formulated but he came forward with the suggestion that the existing five trustees would formulate a proposal setting out the criteria for educational assistance and submit to the Court. Accordingly, the trustees of the defendants' group themselves formulated certain proposals for educational assistance, and submitted to the Court and a copy of which was also served on the plaintiffs' counsel. When such is the position this Court has to necessarily set out the criteria for educational assistance; Consequently, the applications already collected and finalised by the defendants for the academic year 2009-2010 and submitted in the form of typed set of papers cannot, as such, be approved.
67. Whatever order passed as of now would be prospective and cannot be retrospective.
68. As such, the applications obtained and the list prepared enumerating the beneficiaries cannot simply be approved by this Court and that too in the wake of serious objections forthcoming from the side of the plaintiffs. Further more, such list was not prepared obviously and axiomatically on any logical and rational grounds emerged out of any resolution passed by the trustees.
69. The learned counsel for the defendants would submit that while arguing the OSA Nos.358, 359 and 360 of 2009 before the Division Bench of this Court the learned counsel for the plaintiffs made a supine submission that in the event of the defendants filing an application seeking permission to spend money for rendering educational assistance, he would say 'no objection'.
70. Whereas the learned counsel for the plaintiffs would vehemently oppose the said argument as put forth on the side of the defendants by pointing out that before the Division Bench of this Court, he did not state so. Hence, it is just and necessary to extract hereunder para Nos.8 and 9 of the Division Bench judgement of this Court:
"8. The learned counsel for the respondents referred to Scheme Decree paragraphs 16, 17, 20 and 21 and also submitted that if applications are moved for withdrawal of the amount for the purpose of purchasing books and note books for children, the respondents would say no objection, if they are satisfied with the accounts.
Clause 20 and 21 read as follows:
"20. All the properties of the charity, movables and immovable shall vest in the Board. The Board shall from time to time prepare and maintain a register of properties belonging to the charity.
21. The Board shall have power to grant leases of the charity properties on proper terms for a period not exceeding three years. The Board shall not sell or mortgage the charity properties without the previous sanction of the Court.
Therefore, clause-1 is in accordance with the Scheme Decree.
Clause 16 and 17 read as follows:
"16. The balance of the funds remaining due after payment of municipal charges, taxes, etc., each year shall be set apart as a Reserve Fund to be accumulated. The monies so formed as Reserve Fund, shall be utilised for the upkeep of the charity properties and next for their improvement or for the acquisition of fresh properties. If any balance still left over in the Reserve fund, exceeds Rs.1000/- each excess be invested in trust securities.
17. All the funds of the charity shall be deposited to the Indian Bank to the credit of the Board of Trustees and the same shall be operated upon only under the joint signatures of both the Secretary and the Treasurer. The treasurer shall not keep in his hands more than a sum of Rs.20/- at a time in cash for meeting the incidental expenses of the charity."
9. Therefore, even Scheme Decree visualised certain control with regard to fluid cash in the hands of the trustee. The Scheme Decree ordered that Trustees shall withdraw Rs.25,000/- for carrying on the trust affairs. If there is reason for incurring extra expenses for purchase of books and note books for children, prior to the commencement of Academic year, then those applications can be moved well in advance so that this object can also be achieved." (emphasis supplied)
71. No doubt, in para No.8, there is some reference also about the submission made by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. Even time was granted for both sides to get suitable clarifications from the Division Bench, and they initially got time from this Court but subsequently they have not come forward with any result.
72. Be that as it may, what I could understand from the said judgement of the Division Bench is that before the Division Bench on the defendants' side representations were made that they were going to get orders from this court for spending money in respect of the programme of extending educational assistance and that was recorded by the Division Bench. Now, this court in view of the ratiocination adhered to supra in the earlier part of this order has decided to grant permission for spending money for implementing the programme of educational assistance.
73. GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE OBJECT OF RENDERING EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE RUN THUS:
The amount permitted to be used by the Trust for rendering educational assistance is limited to Rs.28,00,000/- (Rupees twenty eight lakhs only) per annum in total.
I. SCOPE OF EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE:
(i) Issuing free text books and note books for students up to 12th standard or providing funds for the same.
(ii) Providing actual school fees/college fees or Rs.15,000/-
(Rupees fifteen thousand) per annum, whichever is less.
II. ECONOMIC CRITERIA FOR RENDERING EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE:
Candidate's parents/Guardian's income should not exceed Rs.96,000/- (Rupees ninety six thousand only) per annum.
III. METHOD OF SELECTING THE BENEFICIARIES FOR RENDERING EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE:
(i) Candidate's whose parents/guardian's having the lowest income shall be selected first and therefrom in the ascending order the candidates should be selected and the upper income limit is Rs.96,000/- (Rupees ninety six thousand) per annum.
(ii) Applications should be called for from the eligible candidates by making publications in any two Tamil Daily Newspapers having circulation in Chennai and in the neighbouring Districts.
(iii) There should not be any discrimination based on caste, creed, religion etc., in choosing the beneficiaries.
(iv) Parents/guardians of the candidates should not be employees of the Government/Government Companies.
IV. CERTIFICATES REQUIRED FROM THE CANDIDATES:
(i) Income certificate from the Tahsildar.
(ii) Certificate from the employer of the parents/guardians of the candidates specifying that no educational assistance is provided to the candidate.
(iii) Certificate evidencing that a candidate is studying in an educational institution; and
(iv) Such other certificates/particulars as might be necessary for the rendering of educational assistance.
This shall have only prospective effect, so to say, this shall be applicable only from the academic year 2010-2011 onwards, pending disposal of the suit.
74. For the purpose of implementing this educational scheme, Mr.D.S.Thiruma Valavan, Advocate, No.113, New Law Chambers, Madras High Court, Chennai-104, is appointed as Advocate Commissioner and his initial fee is fixed at Rs.10,000/- payable by the defendants from the trust account, at the first instance.
75. The plaintiffs and the defendants are permitted to assist the Advocate Commissioner in implementing the said programme of educational assistance.
76. Accordingly, O.A.No.261 of 2010 is dismissed and A.No.93 of 2010 is allowed on the aforesaid condition.
Msk/vj2/ 30.03.2010 gms Index:Yes Internet:Yes Note to Office: Issue order today G.RAJASURIA, J. OA.No.261 of 2010 A.No.93 of 2010 in C.S.No.849 of 2005 30.03.2010