Madras High Court
M/S.Eternal Word Trust vs M/S.Eternal Word Trust on 14 February, 2025
CRP.No.1366 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on:17.11.2025 Pronounced on:28.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
CRP. No.1366 of 2025
and
CMP. No.8096 of 2025
M/s.Eternal Word Trust
Rep by its Author Mr.R.Israel Jabaraj,
No.100, 100 Feet Road, Vadapalani,
Chennai – 600 026.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
M/s.Eternal Word Trust,
Registered Charitable Religious Trust,
Rep by its Managing Trustee,
Mrs.Vimala Jacob, W/o.T.Jacob Chinnadurai,
No.11F, Murugesan Nagar,
Villivakkam, Chennai 600 049.
Respondent(s)
PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to set aside the fair order and decreetal order
passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur made in I.A.
No.1 of 2024 in O.P. No.141 of 2024 dated 14.02.2025.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mukunth,
Senior Counsel for
M/s.A.R.Suresh
For Respondent : Mr.P.N.George Graham,
for M/s.Devadasan and Sagar
**********
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 04:00:29 pm )
CRP.No.1366 of 2025
ORDER
The revision petitioner is the petitioner in Trust O.P. No.141 of 2024 before the Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur. Aggrieved by the order permitting impleadment of a former Managing Trustee of the petitioner Trust, invoking Order I, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the revision petitioner is before this Court.
2. I have heard Mr.S.Mukunth, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.A.R.Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.N.George Graham for Mr.Devadasan and Sagar, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. Mr.S.Mukunth, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondent has no locus to get himself impleaded in the Trust O.P. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the respondent was earlier the Managing Trustee of the petitioner Trust and the respondent had herself filed O.P. No.146 of 2017 seeking permission to sell the properties belonging to the petitioner's Trust and the said O.P. was not diligently prosecuted by the respondent and the same came to be dismissed for non prosecution on 05.03.2021. 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 04:00:29 pm ) CRP.No.1366 of 2025
4. Mr.S.Mukunth, learned Senior Counsel would also take me through the amendments to the Trust, in and where by the respondent was removed from the post of Managing Trustee, but however was retained as a Trustee for a period of one year and by subsequent amendments, the respondent was removed from even primary membership of the Trust. He would therefore contend that the respondent was neither a proper nor necessary party to the Trust O.P.
5. The learned Senior Counsel would also place reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Ashok Shreekrishna Beharay Vs. Joint Charity Commissioner and another, reported in 2025 SCC Online Bom 3993.
6. Per contra, Mr.P.N.George Graham, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioner Trust themselves have filed a suit to validate the amendments removing the respondent from the Trusteeship and the said suit was initially filed before the City Civil Court and now transferred and pending before this Court. The learned counsel would further submit that without the suit being decided, it is open to the petitioner to contend that the respondent is not a proper or 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 04:00:29 pm ) CRP.No.1366 of 2025 necessary party to the Trust O.P. He would further submit that the amendment removing the petitioner is illegal and not valid in law.
7. The suit was originally filed before the City Civil Court in C.S. No.14183 of 2010 and now pending before this Court in C.S. No.400 of 2014. The learned counsel for the respondent would further state that yet another suit in C.S. No.886 of 2013 and yet another suit in C.S. No.205 of 2012 besides Civil Suits in Poonamallee and Ambattur are pending as well. Learned counsel, Mr.George Graham would further state that the Government has initiated proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act, 1961 in respect of the property which is now permitted to be sold with the permission of the Court and it was only the respondent who has filed objections to the notice issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruthani in 2017. The learned counsel would therefore pray that there is no error committed by the Trial Court in permitting impleadment of the respondent as a party in the Trust O.P.
8. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.
4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 04:00:29 pm ) CRP.No.1366 of 2025
9. The respondent does not dispute the fact that having been the Managing Trustee, a resolution was passed as early as on 14.01.2008, pursuant to which the Trust Deed was amended on 08.12.2009, removing the petitioner from the post of Managing Trustee. It is also an admitted position that by subsequent amendment to the Trust Deed on 20.06.2011, the respondent has been removed from the primary membership of the Trust, consequent to a resolution passed on 19.06.2011.
10. As on date, the respondent has neither challenged the two resolutions nor the two amendments, one removing him as Managing Trustee and the other removing him even from the primary membership of the Trust. It is only the suit filed by the respondent/petitioner which is pending and mere pendency of the said suit will not confer any right to the respondent to get herself impleaded in the Trust O.P. as on date her removal from even primary membership of the Trust holds good in the eye of law and therefore, merely because the petitioner is a former Managing Trustee, it will not clothe her with the character of being a proper or necessary party to the proceedings.
11. Similar set of facts was the subject matter of the writ petition 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 04:00:29 pm ) CRP.No.1366 of 2025 before the Bombay High Court. The Bombay High Court in Ashok Shreekrishna Beharay's case (referred herein supra), held that when the person seeking impleadment had been removed from membership of the Trust, he loses the essential qualification to be a member and cannot be said to be a person having interest. The Court further held that if the impleading Application was allowed, it would expand the scope of the proceedings to quash the very authority of rival faction to manage affairs of the Trust and file application for permission to avail loan. Even before the Bombay High Court, it was a case where numerous proceedings were pending between the impleading applicant and the then current Management, regarding the right to manage the affairs of the Trust.
12. The facts of the present case are almost identical. However, the important and most relevant distinction in my considered opinion is that, the respondent has not challenged any of the actions taken by the petitioner, either removing the respondent from the post of Managing Trustee or removing the respondent even from the primary membership of the Trust. In such circumstances, the petitioner in the present case stands on a better footing and a removed Managing Trustee/member, certainly does not have any locus to intervene in an application filed by 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 04:00:29 pm ) CRP.No.1366 of 2025 the petitioner Trust to sell the properties belonging to the Trust. The petitioner is neither a proper nor necessary party to adjudicate the issues that arise for consideration before the Court in the Trust O.P. since she lost the locus to claim herself to be a member of the Trust.
13. More importantly, I find from the impleading application filed in I.A. No.1 of 2024, the respondent claims to be the Managing Trustee of the petitioner Trust, which itself is a mis-representation and the application to implead M/s.Eternal Word Trust represented by its Managing Trustee Mrs.Vimala Jacob, viz., the respondent in the O.P. filed by the Eternal Word Trust itself is not maintainable, as framed.
14. In view of the above, the District Court's finding that the respondent being a former Managing Trustee, would be a necessary party to adjudicate the 'real controversy' between the parties, is clearly erroneous since the O.P. has not been filed in respect of any controversy between the parties, but only for permission to sell the properties of the Trust. There was no necessity for the District Court to even refer to Section 92 of CPC, when the respondent has admittedly not challenged his removal as Managing Trustee and subsequent removal from primary 7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 04:00:29 pm ) CRP.No.1366 of 2025 membership of the Trust. The District Court has also erroneously held that the respondent challenges her removal from Trusteeship and that the same is pending and therefore, she is a necessary party. The District Court has lost sight of the fact that it is not the respondent who has challenged her removal but only the petitioner Trust who has filed a suit to validate the removal of the respondent from the Trust.
15. In such circumstances, the findings of the Trial Court are clearly improper and perverse and liable to be interfered with. This Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order in I.A. No.1 of 2024 in Trust O.P. No.141 of 2024, directing impleadment of the respondent is set aside. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
28.11.2025 rkp Index : Yes Internet : Yes To:
The Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur.8/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 04:00:29 pm ) CRP.No.1366 of 2025 P.B.BALAJI, J., rkp Pre-delivery order in CRP. No.1366 of 2025 and CMP. No.8096 of 2025 28.11.2025 9/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 04:00:29 pm )