Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13. A look at the order passed by the trial Court on 28-7-1994 shows that the trial Court has made a detailed reference to the rival pleadings and then observed -

"I find that it is admitted fact between the patties that the plaintiff-Trust is a registered Trust created vide Trust Deed dated 1-8-1989. There is no dispute regarding founder trustees etc. There is also no dispute that before 7-9-1993' plaintiff No. 2 was the President and plaintiff No. 3 was the Secretary of the Trust as stated in para 9 of the written statement. It is also an admitted fact between the parties that S. Jagdev Singh Grewal, Secretary issued a letter to the trustees for inviting agenda points. It is also admitted between the parties that defendants Nos. 1 to 3 vide their letter dated 30-8-1993 in response to the letter dated 26-8-1993 gave some agenda points for the proposed meeting. It is also admitted that Secretary sent a telegram to the trustees for holding meeting on 7-9-1993 at 10.30 a.m. at 286, Sector 10-A, Chandigarh. It is admitted fact also between the parties that Jaswinder Singh was appointed as Trustees vide resolution dated 2-12-1988. There is a dispute now between the parties regarding the resignation of Jaswinder Singh dated 11-4-1993. The plaintiff alleged that Jaswinder Singh resigned on 11-4-1993 and vide resolution dated 12-4-1993 Baldev Singh defendant No. 6 was appointed trustee which is also signed by defendants Nos. 1 to 3. The defendants have stated that Jaswinder Singh wrote letter to all the trustees dated 29-7-1993 that he never resigned from the Trust and his resignation has been fabricated. Jaswinder Singh is now dead. It is admitted at the time of argument that before 7-9-1993 Baldev, Singh was not removed being trustee. The dispute between the parties arose on 7-9-1993 when plaintiffs Nos. 2, 3 and defendant No. 6 Baldev Singh attended the meeting at Chandigarh in Sector 10-A, Chandigarh, whereas defendants Nos. 1 to 3 held meeting at Ludhiana. Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 alleged that the meeting held by them is a requisitioned meeting and it is a valid meeting and the decisions taken in this meeting are valid and resolution passed on 7-9-1993 is also valid resolution whereas plaintiffs alleged that the meeting held at Ludhiana by defendants Nos. 1 to 4 is illegal, null and void as first of all it cannot be treated as requisitioned meeting. Secondly notice of this meeting at Ludhiana was not given to Baldev Singh trustee. Thirdly, defendants Nos. 1 to 3 had no right to elect new President and Secretary for which there was no agenda. Similarly, they cannot pass resolution for opening bank account. It is also the case of the plaintiff that plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 are not removed from Presidentship and Secretary, therefore, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff argued that plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 are still President and Secretary. On the other hand, defendants case is that meeting held at Chandigarh is void because meeting is to be held at the Trust Office and without the consent of all the trustees it cannot be held at Chandigarh. Consequently, learned Counsel for the plaintiff argued that Baldev Singh cannot be treated as trustee becase resignation letter of Jaswinder Singh had been forged. Thirdly, he argued that Dr. Attar Singh cannot be treated as present through proxy because trust deed specifically barred proxy when the person is present in India. Learned Counsel for the defendant next argued that suit is not maintainable in the present form and further there is no irreparable loss to the plaintiff as the beneficiaries are the students etc. of the Trust. He also argued that the intention of the creator of the Trust is that the decision should be taken by the trustees in the meetings and majority decisions will be treated as decisions of all. Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 are trustees and they cannot be restrained being co-trustees i.e. co-owners from taking part in the trust affairs.