Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Mr. Alok Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has sought to submit that the basic test, to decide whether an amendment should be allowed or not allowed, is whether the amendment is necessary to enable the Court to ascertain the real issue in controversy between the parties. He submits that a reading of the plaint in CS SCJ 393/2021 reveals that there is no reference, whatsoever, in the plaint to Clause 8(c) [of the Trust Deed dated 12th June 2006, as modified vide Supplementary Trust Deed dated 17th December 2012] . As such, he submits, Clause 8(c) does not constitute any part of the "controversy" raised in the plaint filed by the respondent. The amendment in the prayer clause, which the respondent sought to incorporate, therefore, according to Mr. Alok Kumar, was not necessary to adjudicate on the real issue in controversy between the parties.

10. In these circumstances and in compliance with the understanding between them, the petitioners inducted the respondent as one of the trustees of the Trust and also made her a Treasurer of the Trust. These found place in the Supplementary Trust Deed executed and registered on 29th April 2019.

11. The respondent-plaintiff alleged, in the plaint, that, as the petitioners did not adhere to the assurance of making the respondent a Director in the medical college run by the Trust and did not inform the bank, in which the accounts of the Trust were held, that the respondent was an authorized signatory, the bonafides of the petitioners became suspect. The plaint further alleges that the respondent was never given any notice regarding meeting of the Board of trustees of the Trust, access to the account books of the Trust and its income and expenditure data. The plaint goes on to allege that Petitioners 2 to 4 were illegally siphoning and misusing funds of the Trust. Subsequently, the petitioners are alleged to have completely disassociated the respondent from the working and functioning of the Trust.

12. Para 17 of the plaint alleges that the Supplementary Trust Deed dated 29th April 2019 contained certain clauses under which Petitioners 2 to 4 had vested all powers in themselves and effectively made the respondent a trustee with no powers. This, it is alleged, was in violation of the Trusts Act. Para 18 of the plaint avers, therefore, that the said Clauses are required to be struck down.

25. Para 16 of the plaint, as reproduced hereinabove, asserts that there were "certain clauses" in the Supplementary Trust Deed dated 29th April 2019, which were in violation of the Indian Trust Act and were required, therefore to be struck down by the Court. It does not refer to any particular clause; either Clause 8(c) or Clause 8(d). If, therefore, the averments in the plaint are vague insofar as Clause 8(d) is concerned, they would be equally vague insofar as Clause 8(c) is concerned. The plaintiff has chosen not to make specific reference to clause with which it is aggrieved in the body of the plaint. She has, nonetheless, incorporated a submission that there were certain clauses in the Supplementary Trust Deed dated 29th April 2019 which, being in violation of the Indian Trusts Act, were vulnerable to challenge.