Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15. The suit itself was filed by respondents I to 3 as plaintiffs, claiming in para. 3 that 'the plaintiffs are persons having interest in the trust as will appear infra'. The trust is not the plaintiff. It is claimed in the plaint that first respondent is the founder-life-trustee director of the trust and that she nominated the other plaintiffs, among others as cotrustees. Only two have joined her in the suit. In their affidavit dt. 16-2-1986, it is staied that first respondent found it too much of a strain and responsibility on her to be a sole trustee, and therefore, on 24-6-1979 rules of the Society were amended to enable her to coopt not more than five trustees.. Therefore, out of the six trustees, only four had been impleaded. They being respondents I to 3 and 6 (plaintiffs I to 3 and third defendant). Two other trustees being Mr., R. Venkataraman and C., S. Vidyasankar, have not been impleaded in the proceedings, nor any notice was issued to them prior to the filing of the suit nor have they filed any supporting affidavits.

" ........ The time has come to take suitable steps to device a machinery to preserve promote and manage the trust in perpetuity and carry out their valuable objective forever."

Both Mr. V. P. Raman and Mr. G. Subramanian, are not able to point out any sentence in the plaint which deals with particulars in this regard. No factual details are found about what sort of machinery had been in existence and what disadvantages are experienced necessitating framing of a scheme. Para, 7 of the plaint deals with the Society and not about trust. It is contended that prayer to frame a scheme is a direction under S. 92 C.P.C. This is not a matter in which already a scheme had been framed by Court, and therefore, the court was being moved, for any modification of the scheme or for any further directions to be given. For the first time, three of the six claiming to be trustees of an independent trust filed a plaint of this nature asking for a scheme decree to be passed in terms of the particulars found in the draft scheme annexed to the plaint, and such a relief asked for is now claimed to be a direction sought for from Court. One of the requirements of S. 92 C.P.C. is that it will be obligatory on the part of the plaintiff in such a suit while seeking for direction, to aver in the plaint about any necessity existing for a direction to be issued for the administration of the trust. For this purpose, the plaintiff has to give details in the plaint as to how affairs of trust are being carried out and as to what are the circumstances which had occasioned and which could not be prevented, but for the directions being issued by a Court. The 'Necessity' for moving the Court for direction has to be speltout, by referring to the relevant facts and circumstances. The one and the only reason for moving the Court is that the first respondent and the other two co-opted trustees have become old in age. The memorandum of Association or the Rules pertaining to the society were not filed, because it is a separate legal entity, as now admitted by respondents. along with the plaint, no -document about the creation of the trust or any accounts maintained by it or any correspondence it has entered into with the authorities like Income-tax Department or the State or the Central Government from which grants have been received or any copies of sale deeds to show how and when the properties were purchased by the trust, etc., etc., minutes of meetings held by the so called trust or any register or other relevant records on this aspect had not been filed along with the plaint or till date minutes file now produced by respondents contains proceedings of the trust created by Society and not by society independent trust. The plaint nowhere states as to what was the machinery existing during the five decades of its existence, and how far the existing machinery was not adequate and that it has now become necessary to get directions of Court for - its administration. Mr. G. Subramaniam learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 6, while dealing with the allegations of collusion pleaded by appellants, had ' relied upon the following decisions to show as to what particulars should be there in a plaint filed under S. 92 C.P.C.

(1) how and in what manner and what machinery was being followed in managing the trust hitherto during the past 50 years; , (2) how the present arrangement existing is not conducive for its management;
(3) as to why by any other arrangement apart from moving the Court, necessary safeguards could not be taken;
(4) as to how by inducting three more trustees, and out of whom, two are beyond 70 years, the trust could he better managed than by the existing old people etc."

Three -of the six trustees having filed the plaint impleading one among them as a third defendant, even the names of two other trustees are nowhere spelt out in the plaint. The copy of the resolution unanimously passed was unknown to the Court. As pointed out above, the reason of old age has no relevance, to the facts and circumstances of this case. For old age it does not mean that the entire existing set up inclusive of the Society 'should be wiped out by way of direction. They have not confined relief for a direction, to solve such of those difficulties, having nexus to old age. Hence necessity to issue directions had not been spelt out in the plaint. In the light of the decisions above referred to, on the basis of such a ill-drafted plaint, which does not contain required particulars making out necessity to issue directions, the suit under S. 92 C.P.C. is not maintainable.

39. When a leave to institute a suit had been filed on 9-10-1985, and even before it could be posted before Court, for hearing, on the day of filing itself,- defendants I and 2 have singed their vakalats and "' the three defedandants were represent by counsel in court on 10-10-1985,and stated that they had no objection for granting leave. Hence even though a claim is made in the plaint that an unanimous resolution had been arrived at among the trustees, out of whom two had not been impleaded in the proceeding, defendants I to 3 had been impleaded to make it appear as if the matter is contentious and which had resulted in the institution of the suit. If unanimously it had been decided upon, then without coming to Court, the necessary document could be brought-into existence to preserve, protect and administer the properties. The Trust had not come before Court and shown that the existing machinery or the bye-laws or the rules obtaining, do not enable it function effectively and that directions are required from the Court or as to how far the existing arrangement requires to be replaced by a scheme being framed by a Court. Hence, -being fully conscious of what would be confronted in Court, on being approached under the said circumstances for a relief ,respondent 1 to 3 and 6and Sundaram had stage-managed to obtain the scheme decree.Even on the day when the suit was field into court, defendants 1 and 2 had also signed the vakalat and on the same day itself third defendant had been represented by his counsel, though his vakalat had been filed on the next day. Hence, as held by the Supreme Court, there had been a secret arrangement between respondents I to 3 and 6 and Sundaram to institute the suit in this manner i.e., three of them to be ranked as plaintiffs and other two as defendants I and 3 for obtaining a decision for the sinister purpose of stultifying the functions of a society, which could not in law be wiped out of existence by resorting to S. 92 C.P.C. At this stage, it is relevant to recollect that. respondents have taken up the stand that neither the Executive Committee nor the General Body of the Society could in propriety or as a matter of fact make a complaint that none mentioned to them about the filing of the proposed suit. Hence, when the action so taken in this manner had resulted in the Society ceasing to exist as per clause 19 of the scheme decree, collusion is writ large in the manner as pleaded by appellants.