Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: amendment of trust in Sri Sathya Sai Loka Seva Trust vs Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust on 19 April, 2022Matching Fragments
8. The plaintiffs alleged that on 11.09.2012, a meeting of the board of trustees of defendant No.1 was held at Bengaluru in the chambers of plaintiff No.8. One of the items on the agenda was the adopt of a Code of conduct for the Trustees and employees of defendant No.1. This subject was put off since some of the Trustees demanded more time to discuss. On the same night, plaintiff No.8 left to Dharwad on professional work. The defendant No.2 sent an e-mail to plaintiff No.8 on 12.09.2012 to attend an emergency meeting of the board of Trustees of defendant No.1 at 5.00 p.m. on the same day at Muddenahalli. The plaintiff No.8 objected to the meeting and requested not to conduct the meeting. Nonetheless, the defendant No.2 replied that in view of the resignation of Sri. B.R. Vasuki, a meeting was held to fill the vacancy, which was objected by plaintiff No.8 contending that it was only for plaintiff No.1 and its trustees to fill the vacancy. The plaintiffs alleged that though the amendment of the Trust deed of Sai Loka Seva Trust was not on the agenda of any meeting conducted by defendant No.1, yet on 12.09.2012, the three trustees of defendant No.1 executed a deed of amendment amending clause 6 of the Trust deed dated 14.08.1978, which read as follows :
9. The plaintiffs alleged that as a result of this illegal amendment of the Trust deed, the trustees of the plaintiff No.1 were deprived of their right to appoint trustees to the defendant No.1. They also claimed that the defendant No.1 was always under the control of the plaintiff No.1 as all the properties of the defendant No.1 were vested in Bhagavan Sri Sathya Sai Baba, who desired that after he shed his mortal coil, the right to appoint trustees of the defendant No.1 should be with the trustees of the plaintiff No.1. Therefore, the plaintiffs challenged the legality and validity of the amendment to the Trust deed and the consequent appointment of some of the defendants who were appointed by the existing trustees of the defendant No.1, by filing a suit before the Civil Court.
26. The High Court of Bombay in Navroji Manekji Wadia vs. Dastur kharsedji Mancherji [ILR 1904 28 Bombay 20] held that a suit by the trustees of a fire temple for the vindication of the right of management which was vested in, and actually being exercised by, them and those they represent at the date of the obstruction by the defendant was a suit to enforce private rights.
27. In the case on hand, the plaintiffs have contended that the meetings dated 11.09.2012 and 12.09.2012 were non est as they were not held in accordance with law and consequently, the amendment of the Trust deed is illegal, null and void and to declare that the defendants No.5, 6, 7 and 8 are not appointed validly as trustees of Sai Loka Seva Trust and consequently restrain them from acting, holding out or discharging any powers or duties as trustees of the said trust. The plaintiffs were not the representatives of the public and they did not seek for any reliefs that fell within Section 92(1) (a) to (h) of the CPC. If the meetings dated 11.09.2012 and 12.09.2012 were not conducted in accordance with law, the plaintiffs are entitled to question it and get all the consequent action annulled. The rights that the plaintiffs attempted to resurrect were the individual rights of the Trustees of plaintiff No.1 to nominate trustees of the defendant No.1. There was no allegation of breach of trust or mismanagement or for framing a scheme of management etc.
30. In that view of the matter, the substantial question of law No.2 is answered and it is held that the right of the plaintiff No.1 to nominate trustees to the defendant No.1 was an individual right available to the plaintiff No.1 and its trustees.
are since intertwined, the same are taken up together for consideration.
32. The learned Senior Counsel for the defendants No.1, 2, 4 to 8 submitted that Section 92 of the CPC is a complete code that provides remedy against any breach of the conditions of the Trust and the plaintiffs have accused the defendants of committing breach of trust. He submitted that the challenge to the amendment of the Trust was nothing but challenging the authority of the Trust and the consequent relief of removal of the trustees had to be only in accordance with Section 92(1)(a) of the CPC. He submitted that the power to grant reliefs is not restricted to what is provided under Section 92(1)(a) to