Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(h) It also transpired that after the death of Dr.M.A.M.Ramasamy on 02.12.2015, the applicant herein/ 1st defendant has co-opted his wife, the 2nd defendant in the suit as a Trustee in the plaintiff Trust on 07.12.2015. According to the plaintiff, the co-option was illegal and void, as the applicant himself was not a lawfully inducted trustee and therefore, the co-option of the 2nd defendant, his wife cannot be valid. Aggrieved by the action of the applicant herein, one, calling himself as a trustee, two, co-opting his wife, the 2nd defendant and three, administering the Trust, the suit has been filed by the Trust represented by Dr.A.C.Muthiah for the aforementioned prayers. The substance of the dispute as pleaded by the plaintiff herein is that the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ A.No.6433/2019, O.A.No.156/2019 & C.S.No.138/2019 applicant herein, the 1st defendant was not lawfully inducted into the plaintiff Trust in 2004 as according to him, he was inducted unilaterally by Dr.M.A.M.Ramasamy without the consent of the other Trustee namely himself. According to him, he having been inducted as a Trustee by the said Dr.M.A.M.Ramasamy on 30.09.1991 itself, the applicant herein could not have been inducted in 2004 without his consent.

4. Mr.M.S.Krishnan, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the applicant herein would at the outset submit that the present suit filed by the plaintiff is a gross abuse of process of the Court for several reasons. The learned Senior Counsel has taken this Court to relevant facts from the time when the Trust was created on 29.03.1972, the induction of Dr.M.A.M.Ramasamy by his father Raja Sir M.A.Muthiah Chettiar on 07.04.1984 and the subsequent demise of the founder trustee, Dr.Raja Sir M.A.Muthiah Chettiar on 12.05.1984 and also the death of Dr.M.A.M.Ramasamy on 02.12.2015 together with the details of the induction of the applicant as a trustee on 30.04.2004 and the laying of two suits by the applicant herein before the City Civil Court.