At the trial two preliminary issues were framed Whether the suit was maintainable due to want of companypliance with section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and whether the Court had jurisdiction to try this suit relating to trust.
It, therefore, follows that even under clause 6 of the deed of trust it would be an appointment of new trustees.
The trial Court came to the companyclusion that the suit was within the mischief of number compliance with the provisions of section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
On 28 November, 1961 respondents numbered 1 and 2 namely, John son of V.L. Lazar and Varghese son of T.V. John the plaintiffs filed suit O.S. No.
On 12 March, 1960 V. John followed suit.
Prayer e in the plaint was as follows That plaintiffs be appointed to their rightful place as trustees and the second plaintiff being a minor number, be permitted to exercise his rights and safeguard his interests until he attains majority, through his Next Friend, namely his father.
The plaintiffs further alleged that they had exclusive right to be appointed trustees.
Reliance was placed on clause 6 of the deed of trust which, inter alia, stated that in the case of a vacancy, the remaining trustees were to appoint a new trustee.
It is only because the other trustees did number appoint a new trustee that the plaintiffs took recourse to the institution of the suit for the appointment of trustees.
On 27 May, 1957 L. Lazar resigned from the trusteeship.
defendants numbered 4 to 9 preferred an appeal.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated May 18, 1964 of the Kerala High Court in Appeal Suit No.
1787 of 1966.
Further, unless the defendants are removed there cannot be an appointment of new trustees.
The appellants, viz.,
The plaintiffs, namely, respondents 1 and 2 in the present case, alleged that defendants numbered 4 to 9 were strangers and trespassers in relation to the trust, and that the other defendants illegally introduced defendants numbered 4 to 9 into the Board of Trustees.
Apart from the settlor, V.L. Lazar father of the first plaintiff and V. John father of the second plaintiff and defendants numbered 1 to 3, 10 and 11 were trustees.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The trial Court on 12 March, 1962 dismissed the suit and held that the suit had to be instituted after obtaining sanction under section 92 of the Code.
The plaintiffs further alleged that defendants numbered 1 to 9 were guilty of waste and misappropriation.
Narsaraju and A. S. Nambiar, for the appellants.
There was a deed of settlement dated 20 December, 1953 executed by a Christian T.V. Kochuvareed called Thattil Kochuvareed Educational and Charitable Trust.
The plaintiffs, therefore, came to companyrt.
The trustees in the present case did number appoint new trustees.
1 and 2.
The plaintiffs filed this suit in 1961 for a declaration that defendants numbered 4 to 9 were trespassers on the trust and that all acts and proceedings of defendants numbered 1 to 9 done since the resignation of T.V. John and L. Lazar in respect of the administration of the trust are invalid and void that the plaintiffs be appointed as trustees that defendants numbered 10 to 11 be declared to be, and to have always been, lawful trustees and for injunction restraining defendants numbered 4 to 9 from interfering with the trust that an enquiry be made into their administration and accounts, recovery of properties and funds misused, wasted, disbursed or appropriated, and that defendant numbered 1 to 3 be declared to be unfit to companytinue as trustees.
591 of 1963.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ray, J. This is an appeal from the judgment dated 18 May, 1964 of the High Court of Kerala allowing the appeal in part and allowing declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are next in the line of succession to V.L. Lazar and T.V. John respectively and that they are entitled to claim an appointment as trustees.
The settlor Kochuvareed died on 26 July, 1961.
S. Badingay, R. Mahalingier and Ganpat Rai, for respondents Nos.
The trial Court on remand by judgment dated 23 August, 1963 held that the suit as flamed was maintainable and the plaintiffs were entitled to be declared as rightful trustees but the second plaintiff would have to exercise rights as trustee only on attaining majority.
The plaintiffs filed an appeal.
The settlor and the rest of the trustees appointed six more trustees being defendants numbered 4 to 9 inclusive.
The reason why the plaintiffs sought the aid of the Court is the appointment of trustees.
115 of 1961 claiming, inter alia, that the plaintiffs be appointed as trustees.
