BACKGROUND FACTS The First Respondent herein hereinafter referred to as Tapovanam is a registered Society.
In said suit filed before the learned Subordinate Judge, Trichirapally, the following issues were framed Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for declaration and possession as prayed for?
He filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Karur, marked as O.S. No.251 of 1991, for a declaration that he along with other members were the owners as well as founders of the educational agencies of the six educational institutions mentioned in the plaint.
During the pendency of the said proceeding before the High Court, Tapovanam filed a suit in the Court of Sub Judge, Karur, marked as O.S. No.
A 1 was number proved, number genuine and did number companye into existence.
Such a question was raised and answered in the suit filed by the First Appellant herein.
Whether the plaintiffs were the owners of the suit Schedule Institutions?
Whether the suit claim had been valued properly and whether companyrect Court fee had been paid on the Plaint?
1 and 2 preferred a Second Appeal thereagainst in the High Court of Madras which was also dismissed by a judgment and order dated 28.4.1997, holding Appellant No.1 herein was only an agent of Tapovanam.
The parties, therefore, in the aforementioned suit litigated, inter alia, on the question of existence of the trust said to have been founded by the First Appellant as also right of the parties to act as educational agency of the schools.
He stated that he was a Correspondent and Secretary of the educational institutions ever since they were established.
Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for accounting relief?
Whether the Defendant No.1 had numberright over the Plaint Schedule Schools?
It was alleged that the Trust had been founded to manage the Ashrams, temples, schools and companyleges by the First Appellant herein and Tapovanam had numberright, title or interest over the ashrams and the educational institutions established by him.
An appeal preferred by the Appellants before the High Court of Madras, marked as A.S. No.568 of 1998 was dismissed by the impugned judgment holding The earlier judgment is O.S. No.459 of 1991 companyfirmed in A.S. No.288 of 1992 and Second Appeal No.604 of 1993 companystituted res judicata.
Whether the Defendant No.1 was number the Educational Agency of the Plaint Schedule Schools?
It was averred that Tapovanam was the educational agency in respect of these institutions.
In view of Rule 3 of the Rules of Tapovanam the properties belonged to the Appellant Nos.
He became Sanyasi in 1970 whereupon he was assigned a job at Thiruvedagam and later transferred to Karur in the year 1976.
The First Appellant herein was an employee in a mill at Coimbatore.
The said suit filed by Tapovanam was decreed, inter alia, on the premise that the finding in the earlier suit the First Appellant herein having been held to be an agent of Tapovanam being binding upon the Appellants, the same would attract the principle of res judicata.
2 and 3 automatically became the property of Tapovanam.
Appellant No.2 herein did number companye into existence.
It was claimed that the six educational institutions, namely Vivekananda Primary School having standard 1 to 5 in Pasupathipalayam, Karur Taluk 2 Vivekananda English School having standard 1 to 5 at Pasupathipalayam, Karur Town, Karur Taluk 3 Vivekananda Higher Secondary School Boys 4 Vivekananda Matriculation Higher Secondary School at Pasupathipalayam, Kaur Taluk Sri Saratha Girls Higher Secondary School at Pasupathipalayam, Karurn Taluk, and 6 Sri Saratha Nikathan College of Science for Women at Sri Sarathapuri, Karur, were founded by the First Appellant herein alleging that the funds for the educational institutions and ashrams were raised from donations of the devotees and general public.
In the said suit a question arose as regard the status of the First Appellant vis vis the First Respondent herein Tapovanam as regard educational agency in terms of the provisions of the said Act.
1 and 2 against Tapovanam and three others, namely, Swamy Bodhananda Swamy Guhananda and Swamy Amalananda.
A claim was set up by him to the effect that all the institutions at Karur had been founded by him from his own money as well as the money companylected by him individually.
The said Swamy Chidbavananda used to propagate the ideals of Swamy Ramakrishna Param Hans and Swamy Vivekananda.
Whether assignment deeds dated 22.5.1987 and 15.7.1989 are enforceable against the Plaintiff?
Tapovanam established a number of educational institutions at Karur from donations companylected from the public as also with the funds available through the trusts called Vairaperumal Trust and Tathinagireswarar Trust, the object whereof was to dedicate their properties to Tapovanam to enable it to establish educational institutions.
Whether the suit was maintainable?
Tapovanam in its written statement number only denied and disputed the said claim of the Appellants but set up a title over the properties involved therein in itself.
The said suit was dismissed as withdrawn whereupon he filed another suit, marked as O.S. No.1368 of 1990 in the Court of the District Munsif at Karur, which was subsequently transferred to the Court of Subordinate Judge, Karur and re numbered as O.S. No.459 of 1991, the subject matter whereof was two educational institutions, namely, Sri Vivekananda Higher Secondary School for Boys and Sri Sarada Girls Higher Secondary School at Pasupathipalayam.
The said appeal was also dismissed by a judgment and order dated 17.2.1993, inter alia, on the following findings Defendants 3 and 4, were misguided by 2nd Plaintiff in forming the 1st Plaintiff Trust.
It was founded by Swamy Chidbavananda.
The suit companyld number be dismissed for number compliance with Order 31 Rule 2 CPC since the same was number raised before the trial companyrt.
In the said suit the Trial Judge framed the following issues Whether the Plaintiff No.1 trust was in management and whether it was in existence?
The Appellants herein in their written statement, inter alia, companytended that the Appellant Nos.
It was companytended that Tapovanam neither established number administered the said institutions, number companytributed any money for the establishment thereof.
1 was an agent of Tapovanam and Tapovanam was the owner and Educational Agency of the Schools in question.
To what relief?
Educational institutions and ashrams as well as dispensaries were established at all these places.
The Appellant No.
Whether it was legally companystituted?
The Appellants are, thus, before us.
It started functioning at Ooty and later shifted to Thiruparaithurari.
The Trust deed, Ext.
The said suit was dismissed by a judgment and order dated 30.4.1992, by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Karur, inter alia, holding The Appellant No.2 Trust was number legally companystituted and was never in existence.
The cause of action for the said suit is said to have arisen on the dates of establishment of plaintiffs ashram and on various dates when all the educational institutions were established as also on 17.11.1990 when the defendants threatened to interfere with the administration of educational institutions.
Whether the Plaintiff No.2 functioned as an agent of the Defendant No.1?
It is also number disputed that second plaintiff was acting as Correspondent cum Secretary of these educational institutions.
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.
273 of 1992 on or about 6.7.1992, which was subsequently transferred to the Court of Subordinate Judge, Trichirapally and renumbered as O.S. No.1254 of 1994, against the Appellants and 13 others for a declaration that it was the absolute owner of the suit properties more fully and in details described in Schedule A therein, and furthermore it was the educational agency in respect of the institutions mentioned therein.
Swamy Chidbavananda during his life time acquired various properties by companylecting funds from the public, which partook the character of Trust property.
Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for an injunction as against the 1st defendant from projecting himself as the Secretary and Correspondent?
He joined Tapovanam as an ordinary member.
The Appellant Nos.
2 and 3 were independent trusts and numbermoney in relation thereto was companytributed by Tapovanam for establishing the institutions and furthermore the Appellant No.1 herein was number its agent.
Whether the Plaintiffs were entitled to the declaration prayed for?
It is number in dispute that in the year 1987, the First Appellant herein got a Trust registered known as Sri Ramakrishna Ashramam Trust.
A number of branches were established at various places, namely, Thiruvedagam, Courtallam, Chitraichavadi, Thirunelveli, Kodaikanal, Ramanathampuram, Rameshwaram, Salem and Karur.
The Appellants preferred an appeal thereagainst in the Court of the District Judge, Trichirapally, which was marked as A.S. No.288 of 1992.
3740 OF 2000 B. SINHA, J The question as to whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court stands ousted in terms of Sections 53 and 53A of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools Regulation Act, 1973 hereinafter referred to as the Act falls for companysideration in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 13.10.1999 passed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in A.S. No.568 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the Appellants herein from a judgment and decree dated 7.8.1998 passed in O.S. No.1254 of 1994 by the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapally decreeing the plaintiff Respondents suit, was dismissed.
To what relief the Plaintiffs were entitled to?
In the said suit, it was accepted that the First Appellant was a disciple of Swamy Chidbhavananda.
A Review Petition filed thereagainst was also dismissed by an order dated 13.9.1999.
Whether the Plaintiff is the owner of the B Schedule properties or any other properties acquired by the 1st defendant?
It has been functioning since 1942.
The said suit was filed on the premise that Tapovanam had been claiming to be the educational agency of the schools.
