Madras High Court
D.Balakumar vs Imayam Trust on 18 December, 2018
Author: N.Kirubakaran
Bench: N.Kirubakaran
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 18.12.2018
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN
C.M.A.(MD).Nos.6 to 8 of 2017
and
C.M.P.Nos.90 to 95 of 2017
C.M.A.(MD).No.6 of 2017
1.D.Balakumar
2.P.Natarajan ... Appellants
Vs
1.Imayam Trust,
Represented by its Chairman,
P.Periannan,
Kannanur,
Thuraiyur Taluk, Trichy District.
2.P.Periannan
3.A.Andy
4.D.Prabhu
5.A.Nagammal
6.A.Malliga
7.P.Reesa
8.P.Sivakumar ... Respondents
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
PRAYER : Appeal against the fair and decreetal order passed on
01.11.2016 in I.A.No.339 of 2013 in O.S.No.170 of 2013 by the Principal
District Judge, Tiruchirappalli.
For Appellants :Mr.P.Renganatha Reddy
for M/s.King & Partridge
For Respondents :Mr.K.Prabhakar (for R1)
Ms.J.Ananda Valli (for R3, R5 and R6)
Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan (for R4)
Mr.K.Prabhakar (for R2, R7 and R8)
C.M.A.(MD).No.7 of 2017
1.D.Balakumar
2.P.Natarajan ... Appellants
Vs
1.Imayam Trust,
Represented by its Chairman,
P.Periannan,
Kannanur,
Thuraiyur Taluk, Trichy District.
2.P.Periannan
3.A.Andy
4.D.Prabhu
http://www.judis.nic.in
3
5.A.Nagammal
6.A.Malliga
7.P.Reesa
8.P.Sivakumar ... Respondents
PRAYER : Appeal against the fair and decreetal order passed on
01.11.2016 in I.A.No.340 of 2013 in O.S.No.170 of 2013 by the Principal
District Judge, Tiruchirappalli.
For Appellants :Mr.P.Renganatha Reddy
for M/s.King & Partridge
For Respondents :Mr.K.Prabhakar (for R1)
Ms.J.Ananda Valli (for R3, R5 and R6)
Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan (for R4)
Mr.K.Prabhakar (for R2, R7 and R8)
C.M.A.(MD).No.8 of 2017
1.D.Balakumar
2.P.Natarajan ... Appellants
Vs
1.Imayam Trust,
Represented by its Chairman,
P.Periannan,
Kannanur,
Thuraiyur Taluk, Trichy District.
http://www.judis.nic.in
4
2.P.Periannan
3.A.Andy
4.D.Prabhu
5.A.Nagammal
6.A.Malliga
7.P.Reesa
8.P.Sivakumar ... Respondents
PRAYER : Appeal against the fair and decreetal order passed on
01.11.2016 in I.A.No.375 of 2013 in O.S.No.170 of 2013 by the Principal
District Judge, Tiruchirappalli.
For Appellants :Mr.P.Renganatha Reddy
for M/s.King & Partridge
For Respondents :Mr.K.Prabhakar (for R1)
Ms.J.Ananda Valli (for R3, R5 and R6)
Mr.K.R.Shiva Shankar
for Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan (for R4)
Mr.K.Prabhakar (for R2, R7 and R8)
http://www.judis.nic.in
5
COMMON JUDGMENT
These appeals have been preferred by the plaintiffs before the trial court against the order of the trial Court dismissing the applications,
(a) Seeking injunction restraining respondents 2 to 8 from functioning as Chairman, Vice Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer, Managing Trusties of the first respondent/Trust and also from handling or operating the bank accounts, pertaining to the first respondent/Trust.
(b) Another application for interim injunction restraining respondents 2 to 8 from interfering with the day- to-day administration of Educational Institution functioning at the first respondent/Trust including the admission of students for the Educational Institution of the first respondent/Trust for collection of capitation fee, charges donations, caution deposits from the students and receipts from the Government and single window system of scholarship from the Government and to appoint an http://www.judis.nic.in 6 administrator preferably a retired District Judge to take over the administration and management of the entire affairs of the first respondent /Trust and its educational institution.
2.The appellants claiming that they are the beneficiaries and they have substantial public interest in the first respondent/Trust filed a suit in O.S.No.170 of 2013 on the file of Principal District Judge, Trichy, for framing of a scheme under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code and for declaration that respondents 2 to 8 are disqualified and ineligible to their respective posts in the first respondent/Trust; removing respondents 2 to 8 from the Trusteeship of the first respondent/Trust; for appointing an administrator, preferably a retired District Judge to administer the entire affairs of the Trust and its educational institution; to hand over all accounts to the administrator, since the date of constitution of the first respondent/Trust; to file a detailed report into the affairs of the Trust from 2004 onwards and for permanent injunction restraining respondents 2 to 8 from functioning as Chairman, Vice Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer, Managing Trusties of the first respondent/Trust and also from handling or operating the bank accounts, pertaining to the first http://www.judis.nic.in 7 respondent/Trust.
3.The first respondent/Trust was formed under the name and style of “Imayam Trust” vide the registered document dated 18.10.2004 with an object to serve the humanity particularly the downtrodden, orphans, elderly persons, physically handicapped and for their upliftment and education. Various educational institutions have been started and they are being administered by the correspondents nominated from among the Trustees.
4.A supplementary deed dated 07.10.2005 was also executed by respondents 2 to 7, in and by which 8th respondent was included as one of the trustees and made as Vice Chairman of the first respondent/Trust.
5.Many institutions have been established by the Trust. However, the second and third respondents, who were acting as Chairman and Secretary, for their personal favours, benefits and gains misused their powers and duties and rights conferred under Clause 4 and 5 of the Trust deed. Contrary to the provisions of the Trust deed, respondents 2 and 3 http://www.judis.nic.in 8 have collected huge sums of money as capitation fee/donation from the students to enrich with wrongful gain for themselves, unauthorizedly to the tune of many crores for their personal gains.
6.As per Clause 8 of the Trust deed, the Board has to be convened once in every 3 months to approve the audited accounts, to prepare budget for the subsequent years and to pass resolution with the consent and advice of the Chairman, if necessary.
7.It is alleged that respondents 2 and 3 started mismanaging the affairs of the Trust and swindled crores of rupees from and out of the Trust fund and refused to part-with information regarding the accounts. Though respondents 2 and 3 are duty bound to safeguard the interest of the Trust, in reality, they are functioning contrary to the interest of the Trust, which is a public and charitable in nature. If respondents 2 to 8 are permitted to continue as trustees, the entire trust funds and properties will be mis-appropriated defeating the very object of the Trust.
http://www.judis.nic.in 9
8.Making the above allegations against respondents 2 to 8, the above suit has been filed. In the said suit, applications have been filed seeking to restrain the respondents from functioning as Chairman, Vice Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer, Managing Trusties of the first respondent/Trust and also from handling or operating the bank accounts, pertaining to the first respondent /Trust.
9.A counter affidavit and an additional counter affidavit have been filed by the first respondent, which have been adopted by the other respondents except the fourth respondent, who has filed a separate counter.
10.The main contentions of the respondents are that the appellants are not the beneficiaries of the Trust and therefore, the suit itself is not maintainable. Further it is to be noted that the appellants have not approached this Court with clean hands. The averments of misusing their powers for their personal favour in collusion with other respondents have been denied. The appellants failed to point out even a single incident of misusing the powers by the respondents. Similar is the http://www.judis.nic.in 10 allegation regarding the misappropriation of funds. The respondents alleged that the accounts have been properly maintained and duly audited, apart from submission of income tax returns regularly to the income tax department. There is no irregularity committed, as the institutions have been collecting fees as per the University norms, as approved by the AICTE.
11.The fourth respondent, without any approval of the Trust Board furnished the documents of the Trust to the appellants and on receipt of those documents only, the suit has been filed by the appellants. The Trust is a private trust. The administration is said to be with the Trustees and there is no dedication of the properties to the public. Moreover, the appellants are third parties and they have no right or interest whatsoever in the Trust.
12.The bank loans have been obtained by the Trustees showing their personal property as security and the Trust properties have not been touched upon. The allegation that no board meeting was conducted as per Clause 8 of the Trust deed has also been denied. Since the 4 th http://www.judis.nic.in 11 respondent, Mr.Prabhu was acting against the interest of the Trust, a resolution was passed on 02.12.2017 removing him from the Board. There is no documentary evidence to prove the allegations of misuse of powers, misappropriation and swindling of trust funds. The suit has been filed only to paralyze the administration of the Trust and educational institutions run by it.
13.The 4th respondent filed a counter contending that he is the Treasurer of the Trust and he never signed any cheque or has any control over the day-to-day administration of the Trust and he has not misappropriated or misused the funds of the Trust in collusion with the other respondents.
14.Based on the above contention, the Trial Court held that even though there are documents to show construction Contract work were given to the family members of the respondents 2 and 3 and to the employees of their institutions, it is only through the documents Ex. P.1 to P.15, the allegations are sought to be proved. The genuineness of the documents would be proved only by adducing oral evidence at the time http://www.judis.nic.in 12 of trial. Though prima facie the petitioner has proved that there are some mismanagement and some illegal activities committed in the administration of the Trust, Institutions and the funds of the Trust have been misused by the respondents, the mis-management and other allegations are to be proved only by letting in oral evidence. The suit itself is ripe for trial and the reliefs sought for in the main suit is akin to the reliefs sought for in these petitions. The contents of the document are to be taken into account at the time of trial through oral evidence. Without oral evidence, the Court could not come to the conclusion that the contents of documents Exs.P12 and P13 are sufficient to prove the case of the appellants. The Trial Court held that there is no imminent danger to the funds of the Trust and the appellants have not proved that if the administrator is not appointed as interim measure, their interest would be affected and dismissed the applications. Against the said order of dismissal only the present appeals have been filed.
15.Heard Mr.P.Renganatha Reddy, for the appellants; Mr.V.Raghavachari, for Ms.Anantha Valli; Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan and Mr.K.Prabhakar, for the respondents.
http://www.judis.nic.in 13
16.Mr.P.Renganatha Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would submit that the contention of the appellants that the subject Trust Imayam is a public Trust has been confirmed by the order of this Court in C.R.P.[M.D].No.140 of 2014, dated 10.02.2015, which was also confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. [C] No. 8781 of 2015, dated 27.01.2016. When there are allegations against the Trustees that they are mismanaging the funds and the institutions are committing fraud in getting scholarship amounts under SC/ST students' scholarship scheme and the Trust is under the control of the persons who are mismanaging the funds, then there is every possibility that the entire trust funds and properties would be misappropriated defeating the very object of the Trust.
17.Mr.P.Renganatha Reddy, would point out from the trial Court judgment that when the trial court prima facie came to the conclusion that there are some mismanagement and there are some illegal activities committed in the administration of the Trust institutions and the funds of the Trust have been misused by the respondents, the trial court should http://www.judis.nic.in 14 not have dismissed the applications stating that all the documents have to be proved by oral evidence at the time of trial. If the documents which have been relied upon for the purpose of proving mismanagement, misappropriation and fraudulent acts are allowed to be under the control of the respondents, they would change the documents, fabricate suitable documents to suit their case and even destroy those documents. Therefore for easy access and production of the documents, it is necessary the Trust be under the control of Administrator and the respondents be restrained from acting as Chairman, Vice Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer, Managing Trusties of the first respondent/Trust and also from handling or operating the bank accounts, pertaining to the first respondent/Trust. Thus the trial court committed grave error in dismissing the application for administrator as well as for injunction, even though the petitioner has proved their case which has been accepted by the trial Court in para 24 of the trial court order.
18.On the other hand, Ms.Anantha Valli and Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would submit that there is no mismanagement, maladministration or fraud committed by the http://www.judis.nic.in 15 respondents. All these allegations have been made only to destabilize the institution trust, so that all the institutions are paralyzed. The trial court rightly dismissed the applications stating that except the appellants, no other persons has made complaint either against the respondents or against the trust. Making use of certain documents which have been fraudulently taken by the fourth respondent and given to the appellants, the appellants cry foul in the administration of the Trust. All the allegations would remain as allegations unless oral evidence is let-in at the time of trial. That is the reason why the trial court rightly dismissed the applications reasoning that the allegations have to be proved by production of documents and by adducing oral evidence. More over pleadings are completed and therefore instead of wasting time in the interim application, the trial court can proceed.
19.The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that there was a talk of settlement in the presence of the DSP, based on the complaint given by one Mr.Prabu and in fact, he sought one educational institution and he produced an audio tape and transcription of settlement talk recorded in the tape. Relying upon the said settlement http://www.judis.nic.in 16 talk, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that intention of the appellants is only money or an institution from the respondents.
20.An argument was made by the appellants that the scholarship sanctioned to the SC/ST candidates were misappropriated and the very same names have been used twice to get SC/ST scholarship. Relying upon the information received under RTI from Adi Dravidar Welfare Department on 19.12.2017 stating that Imayam Catering Training Institute did not file any application seeking SC/ST scholarship for the year 2012-2013 and that the allegation of misuse of SC/ST scholarship is false.
21.The learned counsel for respondents would rely upon the judgment of this Court in the case of The bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi Limited Mumbai Vs. Spartex Ceramics India Limited, Chennai and Others reported in 2007 [2] Law Weekly, 632, to contend that in the interim stage any relief should not have been granted and if granted it would amount to a pre-trial decree and the injunction granted would cause greater hardship to the respondents. Even if prima facie case has http://www.judis.nic.in 17 been made out in favour of the appellants the Court would refuse temporary injunction, if the injury suffered by the appellants on account of the refusal of injunction is not irreparable and considering the comparative hardship that would be caused to the parties, injunction ought not have been granted. As per the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Best Sellers Retail (India) Pvt. Ltd. and another Vs. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. and Ors reported in 2012 [5] MLJ 435 (SC), the appointment of Receiver is an extreme step only when there is an imminent danger to the subject property, the Court would usually would grant such an extreme relief and no such imminent threat to the Trust property proved by the appellants. Hence, the learned counsel for Respondents seeks for dismissal of the appeals.
22.By way of reply Mr.P.Renganatha Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the alleged settlement talk as recorded in the audio tape cannot be relied upon. The 1 st appellant was forcibly taken to the police station and he was threatened to withdraw the civil suit, failing which, false cases would be foisted against him and he would be in Jail. In this regard, he sent a http://www.judis.nic.in 18 representation on 11.12.2016 about the extra constitutional methods adopted by the police. It would only go to show that the respondents are arm twisting the appellants to withdraw the case and based on the false complaint only he was taken and the alleged conversation took place under threat and finally the said complaint was closed as mistake of fact. Therefore, no reliance could be made with regard to the audio tape and the conversation.
23.Considered the submissions made by either side and perused the records.
24.The allegations made by the appellants are very serious in nature and they contend that for their personal favours and gains, the respondents 2 and 3 misused their power as Chairman and Vice- Chairman of the Trust and colluded with other respondents who are their close relatives violating the norms and regulations of the Trust deed and swindle crores of rupees from and out of the funds of the Trust.
25.The Trust as well as the institutions are under the http://www.judis.nic.in 19 administration of respondents, right from establishment. The allegations against the respondents are that the respondents, for their personal gains, misused the powers as Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Trust, colluded with other respondents who are their close relatives and without following the norms and regulations of the Trust deed, swindled crores of rupees from and out of the Trust fund; No information was given to the appellants regarding the amounts and they act against the interest of the trust. Therefore, appellants sought for injunction against the respondents from functioning as office bearers and trustees of the trust and handling/operating bank accounts of the 1st respondent trust.
26.There are various allegations made against the respondents stating that (i)The respondents 2 and 3 misused the power as Chairman and Vice Chairman for their personal favours and gains. (ii)The respondents 2 and 3 collided with other respondents/trustees, who are all close relatives, failed to follow norms and regulations of the trust deeds and swindled crores of rupees from and out of the Trust fund. (iii) They refused to give the information regarding accounts. (iv) They gave construction contract works to the family members of respondents 2 and http://www.judis.nic.in 20 3 and to the employees of the institution and huge sum of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- was misappropriated by respondents 2 and 3. (v) Fraud was committed by the respondents in getting scholarship amounts under SC/ST students scholarship scheme. The name of the students who studied in Imayam Industrial School of Hotel Management and Catering Technology, during the year 2012-13 were again mentioned as students studying in Imayam Polytechnic College and using their name, SC/ST scholarship was sought and students were issued cheques belatedly.
(vi)The respondents fabricated false documents to avail loans to the extent of Rs.13.92 crores from Dena Bank, (vii)By showing same property, permission has been obtained from the Government to start five educational institutions. (viii)Without purchasing the property, the respondents mentioned in the Income Tax returns, as if the properties were purchased in the name of the trust to the value of around Rs. 10,00,000/- and the said amount was misappropriated.
27.The above allegations are very serious in nature. As already observed, right from the establishment of the institution, the respondents are managing the affairs of the trust of the institution. This http://www.judis.nic.in 21 Court perused the documents filed by both the parties. Though the documents have been filed to support the allegations made by the appellants, there are other documents, which have been filed by the respondents to contradict the same. Voluminous documents cannot be analysed at the stage of interim application itself, without any oral evidence. Merely because certain documents were marked, this Court cannot come to the conclusion that the allegations made by the appellants are proved. The allegations made by the appellants are very serious in nature viz., fabrication of documents, mismanagement, nepotism, misappropriation and maladministration of the trust and the institution. Each and every allegation has to be proved by adducing oral evidence and the witnesses have to speak about every documents. This Court may not be in a position to come to the conclusion based on the documents.
28.Though in paragraph 24, the trial Court observed that the documents filed by the appellants prima facie would prove that there was some mismanagement, some illegal activities in the administration of the trust, the said observation have to be necessarily understood in http://www.judis.nic.in 22 conjunction with the findings in the end of the para given by the trial Court that allegations ought to be proved by letting in oral evidence. The trial court would have meant only that these allegations have to be proved by letting in oral evidence. Therefore, the opening sentence in paragraph 24 should be understood in the above manner only. As a whole, paragraph 24 would only show that the trial Court meant that
(i)The allegations have to be proved by way of oral evidence; (ii)The trust is running various educational institutions and are being run by respondents 2 to 8 and they are managing the affairs of the institutions in which thousands of students are studying; (iii)If any interim order is granted, it will have serious impact on the academic stream of the students; (iv) the hardship caused to the respondents and institutions in case of interim injunction being granted would be greater than loss and hardship caused to the appellants.
29.All the defendants filed their written statement and the Suit itself is ripe for trial. The main Suit itself is akin to relief sought for in the petition. If any order is passed, it would have effect on the trial itself.
http://www.judis.nic.in 23
30.The trial Court relying upon the judgment in Sunil Jain and another Vs. Negarathinam and others reported in 2002 (3) LW 298, dismissed the injunction application rightly.
31.The trial Court allowed the appellants to mark those documents which have been obtained under RTI Act from the Trust as Ex.P.12 and Ex.P.13 documents. Though the respondents would contend that the 4th respondent is a relative of the 1st appellants, without consent of other trustees, had given the information, the trial Court rightly found that the contents of the documents were not denied and the original documents are in the possession of the respondents and therefore, the trial Court rightly received those documents in evidence as Ex.P.13 and Ex.P.14. The trial Court rightly found that without oral evidence, the Court cannot come to the conclusion that the contents of the documents Ex.P. 12 and Ex.P.13 are sufficient to prove the appellants' case. It is true that if there is mismanagement, misuse and misappropriation of funds, Court has got powers to appoint interim administrator, as per the judgment in Rajagopal Vs. Balachandran and two others reported in 2002 (2) CTC http://www.judis.nic.in 24 527; D.K.Raja Vs. P.S.Kumaraswami Raja and others reported in AIR 1955 Mad 360; Ravi Lakshmaiah Vs. Nagamothu Lakshmi and another reported in AIR 1971 AP 380. This Court is of the opinion that it is not a case for appointment of interim administer, as the case of the appellants has to be proved through oral evidence coupled with documentary evidence about the misappropriation of fund and mismanagement.
32.Imminent danger of the trust properties and the money has to be proved by the appellants and mere production of documents are not enough to grant extraordinary relief, viz., appointment of administrator. This Court in T.Krishnasamy Chetty Vs. C.Thangavelu Chetty, reported in AIR 1955 Madras 430, held that appointment of receiver is one of the harshest remedy, which the law provides for the enforcement of rights and is allowable only in extreme cases and circumstances, where the interest of the person, seeking appointment of receiver is exposed to manifest peril. The relevant portion is extracted as follows:
“The appointment of a receiver is recognised as one of the harshest remedies which the law provides for the enforcement of rights and is allowable only in extreme cases and in circumstances where the interest of the person http://www.judis.nic.in 25 seeking the appointment of a receiver is exposed to manifest peril. Therefore, this exceedingly delicate and responsible duty has to be discharged by the Court with the utmost caution and only when the five requirements embodied in the words “just and convenient” in Or.40 R.1 are fulfilled by the facts of the case under consideration. The five requirements are:
(1)The appointment of a receiver pending a suit is a matter resting in the discretion of the Court.
(2)The Court should not appoint a receiver except upon proof by the plaintiff that prima facie he has a very excellent chance of succeeding in the suit. (3)Not only must the plaintiff show a case of adverse and conflicting claims to property, but, he must show some emergency or danger or loss demanding immediate action and of his own right he must be reasonably clear and free from doubt. The element of danger is an important consideration.
(4)An order appointing a receiver will not be made where it has the effect of depriving a defendant of a 'defacto' possession since that might cause irreparable wrong. It would be different where the property is shown to be 'in medio', that is to say in the enjoyment of no one. And (5)The court, on the application made for the appointment of a receiver, looks to the conduct of the party who makes the application and will usually refuse to interfere unless http://www.judis.nic.in 26 his conduct has been free from blame”
33.The appellants have not made out any case for appointment of administrator as there are documents filed the the appellants as well as the documents filed by the respondents. All those documents have to be proved in trial through oral evidence. If administrator is appointed, definitely it would have adverse impact upon the administration of the institution, especially, education institutions. This Court cannot injunct the respondent from acting as office bearers of the trustees and put the administration in the hands of an administrator. The students interest is paramount, when the administration changes, definitely it would have impact upon the educational institutions. The appellants have not proved their rights or public rights or that the trust properties would be at peril, if the interim orders are not granted.
34.Though the learned counsel for the appellants would submit that there are fabrication of documents, by producing the certain documents with regard to availing SC/ST scholarship, the respondents also produced RTI response dated 19.12.2017, obtained from Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Trichy, stating that no application was received http://www.judis.nic.in 27 from the Imayam Catering Training Institute. Similarly, the alleged compromise talk, which took place in the police station in the presence of the DSP has to be proved through oral evidence and it is a matter of trial. Moreover, the appellants are seeking interim orders, which have been sought for in the main Suit itself. Without proving the case by trial, the Court cannot grant decree in the application stage itself. On that account also the applications which have to be dismissed, were rightly dismissed by the trial court.
35.The allegation of the appellants that a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- was misappropriated by respondents 2 and 3 by giving construction contract work to the family members of the 2 and 3 and the employees of the 2 and 3 institutions. Mere giving of contract itself would not mean that there was a misappropriation and that has to be explained by oral evidence. Similarly, the creation of false documents and availing of loans to an extent of Rs.13.92 crores from Dena Bank has to be proved by oral evidence only.
36.There is no quarrel with regard to dictum laid down in http://www.judis.nic.in 28 Trambakeswar Devasthan Trust and another Vs. President, Purohit Sangh and others, reported in 2011 (15) SCC 323 about the locus standi of the persons and the Court's duty is to take vigilant care over functioning of the trust. It is also equally stated about the powers of the Court to grant interim injunction, based on three relevant consideration viz., prima facie case; balance of convenience and and irreparable loss and hardship, which is also stated in Gujarat Electricity Board, Gandhi Nagar Vs. M/s.Maheshkumar and Co, Ahmedabad, reported in AIR 1982 Gujarat 289, relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. As far as the judgment in D.K.Raja Vs. P.S.Kumaraswami Raja and others reported in AIR 1955 Mad 360, relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is concerned, there are allegations and counter allegations made by managing trustees and the other opposite parties and therefore, the Court appointed receiver for proper management of trust as interest of the trust likely to suffer. The facts of the above case would not be applicable to the present case as the administration is under the respondents.
37.Ravi Lakshmaiah Vs. Nagamothu Lakshmi and another, http://www.judis.nic.in 29 reported in AIR 1971 AP 380, speaks about Court's power to appoint receiver in an application for injunction, suo motu, if circumstance facts justified. However, no such circumstances is narrated by the appellants warranting appointment of receiver.
38.In the Judgment of N.Anandan Vs. Ayyanna Gounder Memorial Trust, reported in 1993 (2) MLJ 493, this Court held that an order of appointment of receiver to protect the trust properties could be made by the Court, even pending disposal of the application for leave under Section 92 of the CPC. This Court held that the suit trust is a public trust, which finding was already confirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court. With regard to the grant of injunction and appointment of interim receiver, no case has been made out by the appellants.
39.A Division Bench of this Court in Mazdoor Welfare Trust and another Vs. The Southern Railway Mazdoor Union and 5 others, reported in 2009 SCC OnLine Mad 2277 held that in trust case, where concerned Court does not look at the matter, as if it is between two adversaries and the Court is the guardian with regard to the interest of http://www.judis.nic.in 30 minor and trust and therefore, it is bounden duty to give such direction as will secure interest of the trust. There is no dispute with regard to the dictum. However, no case has been made out warranting granting of orders as prayed for. Therefore, trial Court rightly dismissed the applications and the appeals are liable to be dismissed.
40.The trial Court only held that the allegations have to be proved in the trial. Pleadings are already complete and it is ready for trial. If the appellants are able to prove their case, they are entitled to get the main relief itself. Hence there shall be a direction to the trial Court to dispose of the suit on or before 30.04.2019.
41.For the reasons stated above, the appeals are dismissed with the above direction to dispose of the suit in a time bound manner. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. No costs.
18.12.2018 sai http://www.judis.nic.in 31 To The Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli.
http://www.judis.nic.in 32 N.KIRUBAKARAN, J sai C.M.A.(MD).Nos.6 to 8 of 2017 Dated : 18.12.2018 http://www.judis.nic.in