This Court disposed of the said special leave petition and ultimately by an order made on 18.1.1993 dismissed it.
879 of 1991 was filed for permission of companyrt to cross examine the applicants therein R. Kannan Adityan and R. Kathiresa Adityan in particular to prove the fact that it was the father of those petitioners therein who was supplying all documents and materials and who was companyducting the proceedings.
352 and 353 of 1978 had become unnecessary and withdrew the same.
On appeal filed in O.S.A. No.
Later on another application No.
3147/1978 filed under Section 92 CPC.
165 of 1981 and the unnumbered suit filed along with the said application including that of the order dated 18.1.1993 passed by the Supreme Court of India in S.L.P. No.
62/1996 it allowed application No.
352 and 353 of 1978 filed by appellants were disposed of as having become infructuous.
6040 of 1982 by observing that the cross examination, however, was companyfined to the question of sanction and principles governing the same.
An application No.
By a deed of appointment of trustees executed on 22.5.1959 the first appellant S. Adityan son of S.P. Adityan and the second appellant were appointed as one of the new trustees and also to be the Director of Daily Thanthi.
On 29.8.1978 the first respondent and his uncle S.T. Adityan filed application under Section 92 CPC for leave to file a suit for removing appellants Nos.
On 13.9.1978 an temporary order of injunction was made by the High Court restraining the newly appointed trustees from interfering with the management of the trust on the companydition that the first appellant must deposit a sum of Rs.
879/1991 for permission of companyrt to cross examine the applicants therein, that is, Kannan Adityan and Kathiresa Adityan, to establish the fact that it was the father of the petitioners therein who was supplying all documents and materials and who was companyducting the proceedings and that they were 21 and 18 years of age and were students then studying in the Engineering College.
On 2.3.1962 a decree was passed by the High Court in C.S. No.
90/1961 approving the supplementary deed dated 28.6.1961.
62/1996 was filed against the order dismissing application No.
1509/1994 was filed by Kannan Adityan and Kathiresa Adityan for a declaration as follows The order of dismissal passed in Application No.
165/1981 filed by the plaintiffs herein under the provisions of Section 92 of the CPC for grant of leave of this Honble Court and the unnumbered suit filed along with the said application and companyfirmed by the Division Bench and by Supreme Court of India by order dated 18.1.1993 made in S.L.P. No.
3362 and 3363 of 1987 are vitiated by fraud, without jurisdiction number est in law and void, and companysequently to set aside all the orders made in Application No.
The matter was carried to this Court in Special Leave Petition No.
On further appeal, the Division Bench held that it would be in the interest of justice to permit the appellants to cross examine the said parties.
In this case, on an earlier occasion, when one of the suits was filed under Section 92 CPC, when the founder had executed a deed of appointment of trustees and certain interim orders were passed in that suit, the said application was withdrawn without obtaining leave under Order XXIII Rule 1 on 19.9.1978 inasmuch as the newly appointed trustees had resigned their trusteeship and withdrew their application under Section 92 CPC, the two suits C.S. No.
In that proceeding an application No.
Under a deed of resignation dated 19.5.1959 the first respondent herein resigned as Trustee and also as Director of Daily Thanthi.
214/1994, 215/1994, 1901/1994 and 153/1994 were filed for various reasons like appointment of receiver, impleadment of parties and for publication of the proceedings in newspapers.
An application had been filed under Order XI Rule 21 CPC which having been dismissed and on appeal having been companyfirmed by the Division Bench, the same matter was carried to this Court by way of a special leave petition.
1 to 4 filed an application No.
The Appellants filed applications under Section 92 Civil Procedure Code CPC for leave to file suits challenging the said appointments and leave was granted and the said suits are numbered as C.S. Nos.
63 and 64 of 1996 were filed in regard to certain other incidental reliefs.
The said application filed by the appellants came to be dismissed by the learned single Judge.
When the matter was carried to this Court, this Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition No.
1 to 4 to file suit under Section 92 CPC against the appellants in the present case.
6040 of 1982.
33/1994.
The appellants also filed an application to dismiss the said applications filed under Section 92 CPC in limini.
33/1994 for leave to file a suit under Section 92 CPC for framing a scheme, for removal of appellants No.
On 3.1.1994 respondents Nos.
165/1981 under Section 92 CPC for leave to file a suit for appointing them as additional trustees and for rendition of accounts by the first and second appellants.
152/1981 the Division Bench held that it would be in the interest of justice to allow the appellants therein to cross examine Kannan Adityan and Kathiresa Adityan.
While O.S.A. No.
352 and 353 of 1978.
1 and 2 as trustees and for accounts.
In the last week of June 1978 the Founder executed three deeds of appointments of trustees appointing himself, his elder brother S.T. Adityan and the first respondent as additional trustees of Thanthi Trust.
1 lakh per month.
33/1994 filed under Section 92 CPC, S.A. Nos.
All the three newly appointed trustees, that is, Founder, S.T. Adityan and the first respondent executed resignation deeds and withdrew the application No.
1030/1994 was filed seeking to implead Maruthai Pillai, Mrs. Sarojini Varadappan and R. Somasundaram as parties to application No.
The Division Bench by an order made on 16.7.1996 allowed the appeals and thus by allowing O.S.A. No.
RAJENDRA BABU, J. A deed of declaration was executed by S.B. Adityan companysisting of himself, his elder brother S.T. Adityan and the first respondent herein, B. Ramachandran Adityan as Trustees on 1.3.1954.
In the said order the Division Bench also companysidered the scope of Section 92 CPC, impact of the amendment of the Civil Procedure Code in 1976 requiring the Court to give permission in place of the Advocate General to give companysent thereto, and also numbericed several decisions of the Courts on the aforesaid matters.
On 27.12.1963 S.T. Adityan resigned.
1 and 2 as trustees and for accounts.
The learned Single Judge, by an order made on 21.12.1999, allowed application filed by the appellant herein in application No.
The appellants filed application No.
3362 and 3363 of 1987 and restore application No.
33/1994 granting leave to the appellants therein to file suit under Section 92 CPC against the appellants herein.
165 of 1981 along with the suit referred to above to file and to hear the same afresh.
A supplementary deed was also executed on 28.6.1961.
33/1994 filed under Section 92 CPC was dismissed by a learned Single Judge and several orders were made in other applications.
Inasmuch as the newly appointed trustees resigned their trusteeship and withdrew their application under Section 92 CPC, the appellants proceeded on the basis that suits C.S. Nos.
A number of incidental applications Nos.
On 8.11.1961 the Founder resigned.
1 and 2 as trustees.
Application filed by the appellants for dismissal of application No.
Application filed to cross examine applicants was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
While the matter stood thus, on 20.1.1981 Kannan Adityan and Kathiresa Adityan filed an application No.
165 of 1981 had been filed under Section 92 CPC for leave to file a suit for appointing them as additional trustees and for rendition of accounts.
The trustees, namely, the first and the second appellants, resolved to appoint Mr. Maruthai Pillai, Mrs. Sarojini Varadappan and Mr. R. Somasundaram as additional trustees.
