IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1933 AS.No. 120 of 2002 ------------------------- OS.5/1985 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM .................... APPELLANTS/(DEFENDANTS 1,4,7,9,10,12,14 AND 16 TO 20): 1. N.CHELLAPPAN PILLA, KIZHAKKUKAMBIYIL VEEDU, NADUVILAKKARA, MUKHATHALA, KOLLAM. 2. V.G.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, VADASSERY VEEDU, KURUMANNA MUKHATHALA, KOLLAM. 3. R.BHASKARAN PILLAI, THUNDUVILA VEEDU, KURUMANNA, MUKHATHALA, KOLLAM. 4. J.THANKAMONY AMMA, KALAYAKOKOTTU VEEDU, PULIYILA, KUNDARA, KOLLAM. 5. R.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI,PLAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU ALUMMODDU P.O., MUKHATHALA, KOLLAM. 6. S.RAVEENDRAN, VEMPANATTUVILA VEEDU, NADUVAILAKKARA, ALUMMOODU P.O., MUKHATHALA,KOLLAM. 7. N.N.SIVASANKARAN PILLAI, KANISSERY VEEDU KIZHAVOOR, MUKATHALA P.O., KOLLAM. 8. N.N.VISWANATHAN, CHARUVILA, PANKONAM, MUKATHALA P.O., KOLLAM. 9. K.SOMANATHAN, VILAKATHU VEEDU, PERAYAM, KOTTIYAM. 10. V.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, KARINJAMPALLI VEEDU, NADUVILAKKARA, ALUMMODU P.O., MUKATHALA PO., KOLLAM. 11. R.RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, CHANDRA NIVAS, KIZHAVOOR, MUKATHALA P.O., KOLLAM. 12. P.BHASKARA KURUP, KRISHNA MANDIRAM, CHENTHPOOR, DECENT JUNCTION, MUKATHALA P.O., KOLLAM. BY SR.ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI RESPONDENTS/(PLAINTIFFS AND OTHER DEFENDANTS): 1. S.NARAYANA SARMA,VADAKKEDATHU ILLAM, THRIKKOVILVATTOM, MUKHATHALA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. V.KOCHAYYAPPAN PILLAI, GEETHA PLACE, THRIKKOVILVATTOM, MUKHATHALA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. S.GOVINDAPILLAI, PALIKUDAMVILA VEEDU, KURUMANNA CHERRY, MUKHATHALA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. P.GANGADHARAN PILLAI, S/O.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, AYURVEDIC PHYSICIAN,KIZHAKKEDATHU KUZHAKKETHIL, THRIKKOVILVATTOM CHERRY, THRIKKOVILVATTOM VILLAGE. 5. P.PARVATHY ANTHARJANAM,W/O.LATE SRI.NARAYANA SARMA, VADAKKADATHU ILLOM, THRIKKOVILVATTOM CHERRY, MUKHATHALA,KOLLAM DIST. 6. V.N.SUBRAMANIA SARMA, S/O.LATE SRI.NARAYANA SARMA, VADAKKADATHU ILLOM, DO. DO. 7. V.CHANDRIKAKUTTY, W/O.SUBRAMANIA SARMA, VADAKKADATHU ILLOM, THRIKKOVILVATTOM CHERRY, MUKHATHALA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 8. V.THULASIBHAYI AMMA, S/O.SRI.KUNJAN PILLAI, KADUKKARA VEEDU, KURUMANNA CHERRY, THRIKOVILVATTOM VILLAGE. 9. E.K.MOHANA CHANDRAN, S/O. LATE KUNJAN PILLAI, KADUKKARA VEEDU, KURUMANNA CHERRY, THRIKOVILVATTOM VILLAGE. 10. B.SARASWATHI AMMA, S/O. LATE RAMAKRISHNAN PILLAI, VASANTHA BHAVAN, THRIKKOVILVATTOMCHERRY, THRIKOVILVATTOM VILLAGE. 11. R.RAJIKUMAR, S/O. LATE G.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, DO. DO. 12. K.CHANDRAPRASAD S/O. LATE G.BHASKARAN, BHASKARA VILASAM, THRIKKOVILVATTOMCHERRY, THRIKOVILVATTOM VILLAGE. 13. J.BABY, D/O.LATE K.BHASKARAN, BHASKARA VILASAM, THRIKKOVILVATTOMCHERRY, THRIKOVILVATTOM VILLAGE. 14. K.PRABHAKARAN, THOTTATHIL VEEDU, THRIKKOVILVATTOMCHERRY,THRIKOVILVATTOM VILLAGE. 15. K.CHELLAMMA AMMA, W/O.LATE CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, THAZHAVILA VEEDU, DO. DO. 16. C.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, S/O.LATE CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, THAZHAVILA VEEDU,THRIKKOVILVATTOMCHERRY, THRIKOVILVATTOM VILLAGE. 17. C.SIVADASAN PILLAI, S/O.LATE CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, PADINJATTE VEEDU, DO. DO. 18. N.MANIKANDANPILLAI, S/O. LATE NARAYANAPILLAI, DO. DO. 19. N.AYYAPPAN PILLAI, GOWRI VILASATHU, VADAKKEVEEDU, KIZHAVOOR, MUKATHALA, KOLLAM. 20. A.RATNAMMA AMMA, RENAVIHAR, NADUVILAKKARA, ALUMMOODU P.O., MUKHATHALA,KOLLAM. 21. S.VIJAYAN PILLAI, GOWRI VILASATHU, KIZHAVOOR, MUKATHALA, KOLLAM. 22. K.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI,SARASWATHY VILASAM, KURUMANNA, MUKHATHALA, KOLLAM. 23. G.PRABHAKARAN PILLAI, PUTHEN VEEDU, THRIKKOVILVATTOM, MUKHATHALA, KOLLAM. 24. S.K.HARILAL, S/O.V.KOCHYYAPPAN PILLAI, GEETHA PALACE, MUKHATHALA, THRIKKOVILVATTOM, KOLLAM. 25. R.RAJENDRAN PILLAI, S/O.LATE M.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, HILLVIEW, ALUMMOODU, P.O.MUKHATHALA, THRIKKOVILVATTOM, KOLLAM. 26. G.RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.LATE R.GOPALA PILLAI SRUTHI KURUMMANNAKARA, MUKHATHALA, THRIKKOVILVATTOM, KOLLAM. ADDL. RESPONDENTS 27 TO 29 IMPLEADED 27. USHA.C., W/O MANSALAMANDAM, AGED 41 YEARS, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (NATURAL SCIENCE), M.G.TRUST HIGH SCHOOL, MUKHATHALA, KOLLAM, RESIDING AT ASWATHYPURI, KILIKALLOR P.O., KOLLAM-4. 28. SINDHU.V., W/O MOHANAN, AGED 38 YEARS, H.S.A. (MALAYALAM), DO. DO. RESIDING AT PUNNUVILLA VEEDU, MARUTHAMANPALLY, POOYAPULLY P.O., KOLLAM. 29. SHIJI.C.S., D/O SAHADEVAN, AGED 25 YEARS, H.S.A. (NATURAL SCIENCE), DO. DO. RESIDING AT VARIL VEEDU, KALAKKODU P.O., BOOTHAKULAM, KOLLAM. Impleaded as per order dated12.7.2002 in CMP 2350/2002 ADDL. RESPONDENTS 30 TO 33 IMPLEADED 30. S.SUDHA, SAHITHY, MARUTHADY, KOLLAM. 31. S.JAYASREE, PAVIZHAM, VALLIKEEZHU, KAVANAD P.O., KOLLAM. 32. C.SULEKHA, CHITHRA SADANAM, MUKKOODU P.O., KUNDARA, KOLLAM. 33. S.DAYA, KESAVAVILASOM, KOONAYIL, PARAVOOR P.O., KOLLAM. Impleaded as per order dated 12.7.2002 in CMP 2349/2002 ADDL. RESPONDENT 34 IMPLEADED 34. GRACY.P.P., W/O EDWIN THOMAS, AGED 42 YEARS, CHAMAVILA P.O., KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM. Impleaded as per order dated 14.3.2003 in CMP 5013/2002 ADDL. RESPONDENTS 35 AND 36 IMPLEADED 35. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM. 36. THE HEADMASTER, MUKHATHALA GRAMODHARANA TRUST HIGH SCHOOL, MUKHATHALA P.O., KOLLAM. Impleaded as per order dated 1.4.2003 in CMP 1438/2003 ADDL. RESPONDENT 37 IMPLEADED 37. SUDHADEVI.K., MANIKRIPA, MURARI JUNCTION, MUKHATHALA P.O., KOLLAM. Impleaded as per order dated 22.3.2004 in IA 347/2004 ADDL. RESPONDENT 38 IMPLEADED 38. SHEELA.B., W/O SIVAPRASAD, HEADMISTRESS, VELAYUDHAN MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL, VADAVANNUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. Impleaded as per order dated 4.6.2007 in IA 1686/2007 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD FOR R5, 7 TO 18 SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR FOR OFFICIAL RECEIVER SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR FOR R24 TO 26 SMT.T.V.NEEMA FOR R24 TO 26 SRI.M.R.RAJENDRAN NAIR, SR ADVOCATE FOR ADDL.R27 TO 29 SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ FOR ADDL.R27 TO 29 SRI.V.SAJITH KUMAR FOR ADDL.R27 TO 29 GOVERNMENT PLEADERSMT.R.BINDU FOR R35 & 36 SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE FOR R19 TO 21 & 23 SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED FOR ADDL.R34 SRI.K.E.HAMZA FOR ADDL.R SRI.E.S.ASHRAF FOR ADDL.R SRI.T.V.VIJAYARAJAN FOR ADDL.R SMT.P.V.ASHA FOR ADDL.R SRI.S.A.RAZACK FOR R30 TO 33 THIS APPEAL SUIT HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2011, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 18334 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVEREDTHE FOLLOWING: A.K.Basheer & P.Q.Barkath Ali, JJ. --------------------------------------------------- A.S.No.120 of 2002 & W.P.(C)No.18334 of 2009 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. Appellants are defendant Nos.1, 4, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14 and 16 to 20 in O.S.No.5/1985 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kollam. 2. The above suit was instituted under Section 92 read with Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, primarily with a prayer to remove defendant No.1 as President and Treasurer of Mukhathala Gramodharana Trust and also from the managership of M.G.T. School. The plaintiffs further prayed that defendants 2 to 9 also be removed from the Board of Trustees and a suitable scheme be framed and settled for the proper administration of the Trust. The other prayer was for a direction to the defendants to render accounts and also to deliver possession of the properties and records of the Trust to the new Trustees to be elected. 3. Initially the suit was instituted by three members of the Trust. Later, supplemental plaintiffs 4 to 18 and supplemental defendants 10 to 24 were impleaded in their capacity either as legal representatives of some of the deceased plaintiffs/defendants or as persons claiming to be interested in the Trust. 4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the gist of the case of the plaintiffs may be briefly noticed. AS 120/02 & WPC 18334/09 2 5. Plaintiffs 1 to 3, who had initially instituted the suit, contended that they along with defendants 1 to 6 and 10 others executed a Trust Deed on January 25, 1968 for the purpose of “advancement of the educational, agricultural, social and cultural development of the people within the Thrikkovilvattom Panchayat”. The Trust was registered before the Sub Registrar's Office, Kannanalloor on the same day. The plaintiffs asserted that it was a Public Trust and the properties described in plaint A schedule were transferred in favour of the Trust. While plaintiffs 1 and 2 remitted `.100/- each towards subscription, plaintiff No.3 had remitted `.200/-. They stated that the suit was being instituted on behalf of the entire members of the Trust in a representative capacity. They also filed a petition under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission of the court to sue in a representative capacity. 6. The plaintiffs alleged that fifteen members to the first Board of Trustees were elected on January 26, 1968 in a meeting held at Thrikkovilvattom Panchayat Ground. Defendant No.1 was elected as the President of the Trust. In fact, even before the execution of the Trust Deed, a managing committee was constituted with defendant No.1 as the President. The managing committee purchased a piece of land having an extent of 3 acres 15 cents described in plaint A schedule for a consideration of `.19,500/- for the purpose of establishing a High School. Twenty six persons mentioned in the plaint had contributed a sum of `.15,150/- for this purpose. The balance amount was taken as a loan from defendant No.2. The High School started functioning during the Academic Year 1968-69 itself in a AS 120/02 & WPC 18334/09 3 thatched shed. Construction of the permanent building of the school was started during the said Academic year itself and it was completed in 1974. 7. It was also alleged that defendant No.1 and other members of the Board of Trustees did not maintain proper accounts and that the affairs of the Trust were being carried on by defendant No.1 without consulting the other members of the Board. The specific case of the plaintiffs was that though seventeen years had elapsed after creation of the Trust, neither defendant No.1, in his capacity as President, nor the other members ever bothered to convene any meeting of the Board or the General Body. Though the term of the Board of Trustees was three years, no election was held to reconstitute the Board from time to time. No annual meetings were also held. Defendant No.1 had, without the consent or knowledge of the Board of Trustees or the General Body, assumed the role of Manager of the School. He fabricated records and previled upon officials of the Education Department to get himself recognized as the Manager of the school. Though defendant No.1 had received `.5,34,500/- by way of donation, he had spent only a sum of `.2,38,500/- for the purpose of the Trust. No account was opened in the name of the Trust in any Bank. The plaintiffs further alleged that huge amounts were collected for appointing teachers in the School which never got reflected in the accounts. 8. Separate written statements were filed by defendants 1, 6, 7 and 9. Defendants 2 and 3 filed a joint written statement while defendants 4, 8 and 10 to 20 also filed a separate joint written statement. Defendants 2, 3, 4 and 5 supported the plaint allegations and put the entire blame for AS 120/02 & WPC 18334/09 4 mismanagement of the Trust and the School on defendant No.1. 9. Defendant No.1, in his written statement, denied all the allegations made against him in the plaint and contended that affairs of the Trust were being managed in terms of the clauses contained in the Trust Deed. He asserted that the meetings of the Board and the general body were being convened from time to time and elections were also held regularly. He stated that the Minutes Book maintained by the Trust would reveal that plaintiff No.1 had signed the minutes relating to the meetings of the Trust held till March 6, 1983. The accounts were also being maintained properly, he asserted. He denied the allegation that he had received `.3,60,500/- by way of donations. He denied the further allegation that he had misappropriated the trust fund of `.5,34,000/-. He had not spent any money belonging to the Trust without the consent or knowledge of the general body. He had not acquired any property in the name of his relatives by misappropriating the Trust funds. Similarly, he had not misused the maintenance grant received from the Government. He further stated that regular and correct accounts were being maintained. These accounts were regularly audited also. In short, defendant No.1 denied the entire allegations of mismanagement and misappropriation. 10. Defendant Nos.6, 7 and 9 in their separate written statements and defendants Nos.10 to 20 in their joint written statement supported the case of defendant No.1. 11. Following issues were raised by the court below: AS 120/02 & WPC 18334/09 5 “1. Is not the suit maintainable? 2. Has the 1st defendant functioning as the President and Treasurer or the Mukhathala Gramodharana Trust (Plaint Trust) and the manager of M.G.T High School, misappropriated Trust funds? If so, what is the quantum or the amount so misappropriated? 3. Is the 1st defendant liable to be removed from the office of the President and Treasurer of the plaint trust? 4. Is the 1st defendant liable to be removed from the office of the manager of M.G.T High School? 5. Are defendants 2 to 4 and 6 to 9, liable to be removed from the office of Members of the board of trustees of the plaint trust? 6. Is an order directing accounts to be taken, liable to be passed? 7. Is a scheme, for the administration of the plaint Trust, to be settled? 8. Reliefs and costs”. 12. It appears that after the commencement of the trial, a compromise petition was filed by plaintiffs 3 and 4 and defendants 1 and 2 and some others. The court below took the view that the compromise will not affect those persons who were not parties to it and that the case can be decided only after recording evidence of the parties. The above view taken by the court below was affirmed by this Court in C.R.P.No.1265/2000. Taking note of the above compromise petition, the court below raised an additional issue, which is extracted hereunder: AS 120/02 & WPC 18334/09 6 “Whether Mukhathala Gramodharana Trust is a public or private one? If so, whether the compromise dated 23.11.1998 is binding on the persons not parties to the compromise”. 13. Thereafter recording of evidence was completed. PWs 1 to 13 were examined and Exhibits A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the plaintiffs. DWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exhibits B1 to B28 were marked on the side of the defendants. Exhibits C1 and C2 prepared by the Advocate Commissioner were also marked in the case. 14. The court below entered a finding on issue No.1 that the Trust was not a private trust as contended by defendant No.1 and others who supported him. The court below also found that the compromise that was filed before the court would not bind the beneficiaries, who are the general public of Thrikovilvattom Panchayat. Accordingly, it was held that additional plaintiffs were entitled to maintain the suit. The court below considered issue Nos. 2 to 5 together and held that defendant Nos.1, 2 to 4 and 6 to 9 were liable to be removed from the Trust in its best interest. On issue No.6 the court below held that a preliminary decree for accounting had to be passed. The court below also held that a new scheme need not be framed as prayed for in the suit and it would be sufficient, if the receiver is permitted to enlist new members to the Trust and conduct an election thereafter in accordance with the provisions of the Trust deed. 15. Accordingly a decree was passed for removing defendant No.1 from the office of the President and Treasurer of Mukhathala Gramodharana Trust and also from the post of Manager of the school. Similarly defendant AS 120/02 & WPC 18334/09 7 Nos.2 to 4 and 6 to 9 were removed from the Board of Trustees. The official receiver was directed to prepare a list of members of the Trust for the purpose of conducting election to the Board. 16. Sri. Krishnanunni, learned Senior Counsel, who appears for the appellants, has confined his arguments only against the finding entered by the court below that Exhibit A1 Trust is a Public Trust. While assailing the above finding, he submits that the salient features of public and private trusts were not properly considered or construed by the court below in their proper perspective. Learned Senior Counsel has taken us through the various clauses contained in Exhibit A1 Trust deed elaborately. He has also invited our attention to the Minutes of the various Board meetings in Exhibit B22 Minutes Book. According to learned Senior Counsel, the documents available on record, if appreciated properly, will unerringly show that the people who were responsible for forming the Trust had no intention or idea to establish a Public Trust. 17. However, it is contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that the minutes of the very first meeting will clinchingly and unerringly show that the intention of the people of the locality was to form a Public Trust. He points out that the residents of Thrikkovilvattam Panchayat had participated in the said meeting for the sole purpose of exploring the possibility of establishing a High School at Mukhathala. More importantly, the said meeting was convened pursuant to a resolution passed by the Panchayat in this regard, at its meeting held on December 30, 1967. He submits that it was not as though only a few selected individuals had AS 120/02 & WPC 18334/09 8 gathered at the Panchayat Office and taken a decision to form a Private Trust. He further submits that the minutes of the various other meetings held later will also reveal that the Trust had been formed as a public entity. The very fact that the Panchayat had taken the initiate to convene the first meeting will show that the Trust formed under Exhibit A1 is not a private venture. 18. We will refer to the relevant minutes of the various meetings in Exhibit B22 a little later. But, at this juncture, it may be noticed that the sole purpose of the Trust, as is discernible from Exhibit A1 Trust Deed, was to establish a High School at Mukhathala within the limits of Thrikkovilvattom Panchayat. It is also on record that the School started functioning during the Academic Year 1968-69 itself. The land owners, from whom small bits of land had to be purchased for the establishment of the School, were identified and the land value payable to them was fixed by the Committee constituted for this purpose. A temporary shed was constructed. A Headmaster, eight Teachers, one Peon and one Sweeper were appointed by the Board at its meeting held on June 2, 1968. 19. We have already referred to the minutes of the first meeting held at the Panchayat Office, which was convened by the President of the Panchayat (defendant No.1), who later became the Chairman of the Board of Trustees and Manager of the School. He continued as the Manager till the Official Receiver was appointed by the trial court. 20. Learned senior counsel has invited our attention to some of the clauses in the Trust Deed, which is marked in the case as Exhibit A1. While AS 120/02 & WPC 18334/09 9 contending for the position that the authors of the Trust had made it explicitly clear in the Deed itself that it was not going to be a Public Trust, learned senior counsel points that there were three categories of members. The minimum subscription was fixed as `.100/-. Any individual who paid the minimum subscription was enrolled as a member. Similarly, a member who paid `.1,000/- or more automatically became a member of the Board of Trustees without being elected. The third category comprised of members who paid `.2,000/- or more. Clause 6 in Exhibit A1 made it clear that such members shall have “right of hereditary” and that they shall automatically become members of the Board of Trustees. He submits that, if, in fact, it were a Public Trust, such hereditary right would not have been conferred on the members. Similarly, there would have been no clause for automatic election to the Board of Trustees if it were a Public Trust. 21. We have carefully gone through the Trust Deed (Exhibit A1) and the Minutes Book (Exhibit B22), which we have referred to earlier. It is true that in the minutes of the first meeting held at the Panchayat Office, the expression “Private Trust” will find a place at one or two places. But, as has been noticed already, the residents of Thrikkovilvattom Panchayat apparently wanted to establish an Educational Institution in Mukhathala area. This was a long felt need of the local people; prominent among whom had shown keen interest in the matter. Incidentally, defendant No.1 was the President of the Panchayat during the relevant period. Obviously, he had taken the initiative to convene a public meeting of the local residents at the Panchayat Office. If, in fact, defendant No.1 and a few of his associates AS 120/02 & WPC 18334/09 10 wanted to form a Private Trust, a public meeting for this purpose would not have been held at the Panchayat Office. Significantly, all the six meetings of the Board of Trustees, including the preliminary public meeting referred to above, were held in the Panchayat Office as could be seen from Exhibit B22. The subsequent meetings of the Board were held at the school premises in the newly constructed temporary building. The reference to Private Trust in the first meeting at two places in our view is insignificant and irrelevant for the reasons stated by us above. The appellants have not produced any other document apart from this Minutes Book to show that the Trust was formed as a Private Trust. In that view of the matter, we have no hesitation to concur with the finding entered by the trial court that Mukhathala Gramodharana Trust was formed as a Public Trust. 22. Learned counsel for the appellants has invited our attention to the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar and others (AIR 1957 SC 133) while addressing us on the basic test which would determine the status and character of a Trust. In the above case, the main dispute related to an idol installed in a temple. Question that arose was whether the temple was a private or public temple, in which all the Hindus would be entitled to worship. It is not necessary for us to refer to the facts of the case in detail. After noticing the principles as enunciated in various text books, their Lordships observed thus: “The distinction between a private and public trust is that whereas in the former the beneficiaries are specific individuals, in the latter they are the AS 120/02 & WPC 18334/09 11 general public or a class thereof. While in the former the beneficiaries are persons who are ascertained or capable of being ascertained, in the latter, they constitute a body which is incapable to ascertainment.” 23. The following excerpt quoted by their Lordships from the text book Lewin on Trusts, (15th edition) is apposite. “By public must be understood such as are constituted for the benefit either of the public at large or of some considerable portion of it answering a particular description. To this class belong all trusts for charitable purposes and indeed public trusts and charitable trusts may be considered in general as synonymous expressions. In private trust the beneficial interest is vested absolutely in one or more individuals who are or within a certain time may be definitely ascertained.” 24. Coming back to the case on hand, it has already been noticed that the local residents of Thrikkovilvattom Panchayat had nurtured a long cherished dream of establishing an Educational Institution in that area. The minutes of the first public meeting itself will indicate that large number of local residents had gathered at the Panchayat Office. More importantly, the opening sentence of the minutes will show that the said meeting was convened pursuant to a resolution passed by the Panchayat at its meeting held on December 30, 1967. The participants had elaborately discussed the feasibility of establishment of a School. It was noticed that the dream could not be fulfilled so far, only because of paucity of funds. It was resolved that AS 120/02 & WPC 18334/09 12 a Trust be formed comprising of the “benevolent citizens of the Panchayat”. A managing committee, consisting of 14 members from among the participants, was formed in that meeting for preliminary work. 25. In our view, the above minutes of the first meeting by itself will show that Mukhathala Gramodharana Trust was formed as a Public Trust and the beneficiaries were the unascertained local residents of the Panchayat, particularly from Mukhathala area. We have perused the Minutes of the subsequent meetings also carefully. The local residents had subscribed to the Trust by remitting the requisite fee. There is nothing in any of these Minutes which will indicate that the intention of the participants was to form a Private Trust. In any view of the matter, we have no hesitation to concur with the finding entered by the trial court that the Trust was formed for the benefit of the entire people of Thrikkovilvattom Panchayat as a Public Trust. We do not propose to refer to or deal with the oral evidence adduced by the parties, since in our view the documentary evidence will clinch the issue in favour of the plaintiffs. 26. While dealing with issue Nos.2 to 5, the court below held that defendant