S.Meganathan vs Sri Devi Karumariamman Educational ...
19. Per contra Mr.T.V.Ramanujam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs would contend that the very induction of the defendants 1 and 2 in the trust was induced by fraud. Referring to the memorandum of understanding dated 20.08.2015, the learned Senior Counsel would contend that the defendants 1 and 2 were brought in as trustees on the understanding that they would infuse funds in the trust and also obtain the necessary permissions for running the Medical College. Mr.T.V.Ramanujam, learned Senior Counsel would also contend that the amendments brought to the trust deed is void and no right could be claimed under the said amendment. According to the learned Senior Counsel the power of the founder trustee to remove the defendants as trustees has not been withdrawn. As an alternative submission, the learned Senior Counsel would contend that even if the defendants cannot be removed as trustees the permission that would give them to manage Medical College Hospital can be withdrawn by the other trustees and the trust Board, which had the power to appoint them as trustees and invest them with certain function has always the power to recall the said functions. He would also rely upon the judgment of this Court in S.Saravanamuthu v. V.Moorthy and 4 others reported in 2010 (3) LW 393.