IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 CRP.No. 180 of 2009() --------------------- OP.273/2008 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS 1,2,4 TO 11,13 AND 14. ------------------------------------------------------- 1. NEENDAKARA SREESAKTHI SWATHANTHRA NAIR KARAYOGAM, NEENDAKARA, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT HARIHARAN PILLAI. 2. HARIHARAN PILLAI, S/O.NARAYANAN PILLAI, SAI BHAVANAM @ IRANVILA, PUTHENPURA P.O., KOLLAM, PRESIDENT, NEENDAKARA SREESAKTHI SWATHANTHRA NAIR KARAYOGAM EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, NEENDAKARA. 3. SASIDHARAN PILLAI, AGED 51 YEARS, PRAYAG, MEENATHU CHERRY, KAVANADU P.O., SAKTHIKULANGARA, KOLLAM, SECRETARY, NEENDAKARA SREESAKTHI SWATHANTHRA NAIR KARAYOGAM EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, NEENDAKARA, KOLLAM. 4. SASIDHARAN PILLAI, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.KESAVAN PILLAI, SYAM NIVAS, NEENDAKARA, KOLLAM, TREASURER, NEENDAKARA SREESAKTHI SWATHIANTHRA NAIR KARAYOGAM EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE NEENDAKARA, KOLLAM. 5. KRISHNANKUTTY KURUP, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.VASU PILLAI, VADAKIL, KIZHAKKATHIL VEEDU, NEENDAKARA, KOLLAM, MEMBER OF NEENDAKARA SREESAKTHI SWATHANTHRA NAIR KARAYOGAM EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, NEENDAKARA, KOLLAM. 6. VISWAMBARAN PILLAI, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANA PILLAI, VAISHAK VEEDU, PUTHENTHURA P.O., NEENDAKARA, KOLLAM, MEMBER SWATHANTHRA NAIR KARAYOGAM EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, NEENDAKARA, KOLLAM. 7. MANMADHAN PILLAI, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.SIVADASAN PILLAI, RAMN NIVAS, PUTHENTHURA P.O.,NEENDAKARA, KOLLAM, MEMBER SWATHANTHRA NAIR KARAYOGAM EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, NEENDAKARA, KOLLAM. CRP.180/09 8. SANTHOSH KUMAR, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.MADHAVAN PILLAI, MOOVADETHIL PADINJATTATHIL, PUTHENTHURA P.O.,NEENDAKARA, KOLLAM, MEMBER SWATHANTHRA NAIR KARAYOGAM EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, NEENDAKARA, KOLLAM. 9. KRISHNAKUMAR, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI, BHAVAMY VEETTIL,,P PUTHENTHURA P.O.,NEENDAKARA, KOLLAM, MEMBER SWATHANTHRA NAIR KARAYOGAM EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, NEENDAKARA, KOLLAM. 10. SIVANKUTTY PILLAI, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.SAHADEVAN PILLAI, NEELALAKSHMI KUNNEL VEEDU, PUTHENTHURA P.O.,NEENDAKARA, KOLLAM, MEMBER SWATHANTHRA NAIR KARAYOGAM EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, NEENDAKARA, KOLLAM. 11. UDAYAKUMAR, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI, R.K. NIVAS, PUTHENTHURA P.O., NEENDAKARA, KOLLAM MEMBER NEENDAKARA SREESAKTHI SWATHANTHRA NAIR KARAYOGAM EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, NEENDAKARA, KOLLAM. 12. BABYKUTTAN PILLAI, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.KARUNAKARAN PILLAI, KOCHUKATTIL VEEDU, PUTHENTHURA P.O., NEENDAKARA, KOLLAM. MEMBER, NEENDAKARA SREESAKTHI SWATHANTHRA NAIR KARAYOGAM EXECUTIVE COMMITTE, NEENDAKARA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS 3,12,15 & 16: -------------------------------------------------------- 1. VISHNUBHAKTHAN PILLAI, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.SIVARAMAPILLAI, THARAMEL VEEDU, NEENDAKARA MURI, NEENDAKARA VILLAGE. 2. VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.SADASIVAN PILLAI, VAYALUVILASSERRY VEEDU, NEENDAKARA MURI, NEENDAKARA VILLAGE. 3. RAJAN PILLAI, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.GOVINDA KURUP, MOOVADATHIL, PUTHENTHURA P.O., NEENDAKARA VILLAGE. 4. SREEKANDAN PILLAI, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.RAMAN PILLAI, KOMANCHERIL VEEDU, PUTHENTHURA P.O., NEENDAKARA VILLAGE. 5. SASIDHARAN PILLAI, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.KOCHAN PILLAI, KOMAN CHERRIL VEEDU, PUTHENTHURA P.O., NEENDAKARA VILLAGE. CRP.180/09 6. HRISIKESAN NAIR, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANA PILLAI, KRISHNA VILASOM VEEDU, PUTHENTHURA P.O., NEENDAKARA VILLAGE. 7. BABURAJAN PILLAI, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.DAMODHARAN PILLAI, CHITHIRA BHAVANAM, PUTHENTHURA P.O., NENDAKARA VILLAGE. 8. SURENDRAN PILLAI, S/O.NARAYANA PILLAI, AGED 56 YEARS, VAVAKATTIL, PUTHENTHURA P.O., NEENDAKARA VILLAGE. 9. VIKRAMAN PILLAI, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.THANKAPPAN PILLAI, VINEESH BHAVANAM, PUTHENTHURA P.O., NEENDAKARA VILLAGE. 10. VENUGOPAL, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, RADHAKRISHNA VILASOM, NEENDAKARA, KOLLAM. 11. LATHESAN PILLAI, S/O.KRISHNA PILLAI, KRISHNA MANDIRAM, PUTHENTHURA P.O., KOLLAM. 12. N.RADHAKRISHNAN PILLAI, AGED 67 YEARS, RADHAKRISHNA VILASOM, NEENDAKARA, KOLLAM. 13. V.DAMODHARAN PILLAI, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O.VELAYUDHAN PILLAI, PUTHEZHIKATHUTHOPU, PUTHENTHURA P.O., NEENDAKARA, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.V.V.RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN FOR R1 TO 9 SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR FOR R1 TO 9 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A.NO.676/2009 IN CRP.180/09 DISMISSED. 30.11.2009 SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.180 OF 2009 (E) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of November, 2009 O R D E R Leave granted to the respondents to institute a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of the 1st petitioner, which is claimed to be a public trust, is challenged by the petitioners contending that it is not a public trust but a private trust. The 1st revision petitioner/1st respondent in the original petition, namely Neendakara Sreesakthi Swathanthra Nair Karayogam is functioning at Neendakara and carrying out various activities in accordance with a registered bye-law constituted in the year 1105. Whereas, the petitioners in the original petition have a case that even before the constitution of the registered bye-laws, a public trust was in existence and to regulate its activities, a bye-law had been constituted in the year 1092 and later in 1105, and at present, the provisions thereof are ineffective and also that there is malfeasance and misfeasance CRP.180/09 2 by those in management of the Karayogam, necessitating the intervention of the court to frame a scheme and other allied reliefs, the respondents in the petition dispute even the status of the Karayogam as a public trust. The learned District Judge, after going through the allegations in the plaint and taking note of the objections raised by the respondents/ petitioners herein, came to the conclusion that at the stage of granting leave for permission to institute the suit, only the plaint allegations need be gone into and a meticulous scrutiny and consideration on disputed questions is not at all necessary. It was also observed that in the grant of leave, notice to the respondents is also not essential, and the question of leave need be looked into on the allegations raised in the plaint. In that view of the matter and after satisfied from the allegations canvassed by the respondents in their copy of the plaint produced with the original petition, leave was granted for instituting the suit under Section 92 of the CPC. Propriety and correctness of that decision is challenged in the revision. CRP.180/09 3 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners/respondents 1, 2, 4 to 11 and 13 and 14, inviting my attention to the registered bye-laws of the 1st petitioner contended that the provisions made thereunder clearly and demonstrably disclose beyond doubt that the members of the trust are ascertainable and limited. In a case where members are ascertainable the trust constituted can never be considered as a public trust, but only a private trust, submits the counsel. My attention has also been invited to the allegations raised in the plaint wherein also the provisions of the bye-laws have been reproduced in extenso stating that such provisions are binding on the trust, but they have become ineffective over efflux of time. Without examining the bye-laws, which alone was produced with the petition, the court below had jumped into the conclusion that the allegations made out in the petition make out a case that the reliefs are claimed in respect of a public trust, according to the counsel. In fact the allegations set out in the plaint militate against the case canvassed by the petitioners in the original petition, according to the counsel for the respondents, as to the character of the 1st respondent CRP.180/09 4 as a public trust. So much so, the matter requires a reconsideration, after setting aside the impugned order, is the submission of the counsel. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that even in the objections raised by the respondents, no case was canvassed disputing the character of the 1st respondent as a public trust, which was specifically alleged in the original petition and also in the copy of the plaint. The case of the respondents/petitioners in the original petition, according to the counsel is that even before the registration of the bye-laws in 1092 and 1105, the 1st respondent trust was in existence and by registration of the bye-laws, only guidelines have been formulated for its governance and that will no way change the character of that body as a public trust. So much so, it is the submission of the counsel that no interference with the order passed by the learned District Judge is called for in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction vested with this Court. 3. Perusing the impugned order with reference to the submissions made by the counsel on both sides, I find it may CRP.180/09 5 be inappropriate for this Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction to determine the character of the 1st respondent as a public trust or not on the basis of the registered bye-laws of 1105, which is banked upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners to contend that it discloses that the 1st respondent is a private trust. By grant of leave, no question is finally adjudicated and whatever challenges the petitioners (respondents in the original petition) have against the case advanced by the respondents (petitioners in the original petition) including a challenge as to whether the 1st respondent is a public trust or not is open for adjudication in the suit. So much so, no prejudice or injury is caused to the respondents at this stage by the grant of leave accorded by the court on its prima facie satisfaction that the 1st respondent is a public trust. The respondents in their objections have also not raised specifically a dispute challenging the character of the 1st respondent as a public trust has also got some decisive effect in the decision rendered by the court, which of course, I make it clear will not preclude them from canvassing that challenge in the trial of the suit. On the facts and CRP.180/09 6 circumstances presented, I find no interference with the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge is called for, and the revision is accordingly dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp