IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 23.09.2011 CORAM The Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.S.RAMANATHAN S.A.No.908 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 Mr.K.R.Diwakar ... Appellant/Defendant Vs. 1. Mr.Kotta Manavaliah 2.Mr.R.Narasimha Samy, 3.Mr.A.Aravinda 4.Mr.M.Srinath trustees of Kota Manavaliab Sulochamma Charity ...Respondents/Plaintiffs Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2007 passed in A.S.No.197 of 2006, on the file of the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.09.2005, passed in O.S.No.3239 of 2003, on the file of the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. For Appellant : Mr.S.Natana Rajan JUDGMENT The unsuccessful defendant is the appellant herein. 2. The respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit in the capacity of Trustees of Kota Manavaliah Sulochanamma Charities, seeking for the relief of injunction, restraining the appellant/defendant from collecting rent from the tenants of the Trust properties. 3. The case of the respondents/plaintiffs was that for the trusteeship of Kota Manavaliah Sulochanamma Charities, for a period of three years i.e., from 1.4.1997 to 31.3.2000, the respondents/plaintiffs and the appellant/defendant were elected as Trustees and the appellant/defendant was appointed as Managing Trustee for a period of three years ending with 31.3.2000. The appellant/defendant was not rendering proper accounts about the rent collected from the tenants and evenafter, the expiry of his period, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ he continued to collect rent from the tenants and the first plaintiff/first respondent was appointed as Managing Trustee from 1.4.2000 and despite notice sent to the appellant/defendant, requesting him not to collect the rents and to render proper accounts, he continued to collect rents from the tenants as Managing Trustee. Hence, the suit was filed for injunction. 4. The appellant/defendant contested the suit stating that he was not able to render the accounts properly, as the first respondent had taken a sum of Rs.60,000/- from and out of the Trust funds and he has to account the same to the appellant/defendant and he did not reimburse that amount and due to the fault committed by the first respondent, the appellant was not able to render proper accounts and taking advantage of the relationship between the respondents 2 to 4, who are close relatives, records were created, as if, the appellant/defendant was removed from the post of Managing Trustee and the first respondent was appointed as Managing Trustee and therefore, the respondents/plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief prayed for. 5. Both the Courts below accepted the case of the respondents/plaintiffs and held that the appellant has no right to continue to hold the post as Managing Trustee, after 1.4.2000, as the period stipulated for holding the said post had expired and therefore, he cannot collect the rent from the tenants of the Trust and decreed the suit. Hence, the Second Appeal. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that without proving that the appellant was removed from the post of Managing Trustee, the suit filed by the respondents for injunction, restraining the appellant from collecting the rent is not maintainable and the procedure contemplated under Section 74 of the Trust Act was not followed and therefore, the respondents cannot prohibit the appellant from collecting the rent, as the appellant continued to hold the Office as the Managing Trustee. 7. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. It is not in dispute that the respondents and the appellant were elected as Trustees for a period of three years i.e., from 1.4.1997 to 31.3.2000 and the appellant was elected as Managing Trustee and he has to hold Office for a period of three years ending with 31.3.2000. Therefore, after the expiry of the period of Managing Trusteeship i.e., on 31.3.2000, the appellant has no right to continue to hold the Office as the Managing Trustee and it is the specific case of the respondents that the first respondent was elected as Managing Trustee from 1.4.2000 and that was not disputed by the appellant. The appellant has only stated in the written statement that taking advantage of the relationship of the respondents, they have created records, without giving notice to the appellant, as if, the first respondent was elected as Managing Trustee of the Trust for a period of three years from 1.4.2000 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ onwards. Admittedly, appellant has not challenged the appointment of the first respondent as Managing Trustee or the constitution of the new Trust Board for a period of three years, from 1.4.2000. 8. Therefore, having regard to the admission in the written statement that records were created, as if, the first respondent was elected as Managing Trustee and when the appellant failed to prove that records were created as stated by him, it can be safely concluded that the appellant admitted the appointment of the first respondent as Managing Trustee. Admittedly, the tenure to the post of Managing Trustee is only for a period of three years and thereafter, the appellant cannot continue, especially, when a new Managing Trustee was appointed. 9. As stated supra, the respondents took a specific plea that the first respondent was appointed as Managing Trustee from 1.4.2000 and the same was indirectly admitted by the appellant and he did not challenge the appointment of the first respondent as Managing Trustee. Therefore, after ceasing to be the Managing Trustee, he is not entitled to act as Managing Trustee and collect the rents and the respondents, who are admittedly, the Trustees are entitled to prevent the appellant from acting as Managing Trustee, after the expiry of the period stipulated for the said post. 10. Further, Section 74 of the Indian Trusts Act, will not have any application to the facts of the present case and only when the Office of the Trust could not be filled up by appointing a new Trustee, the beneficiary may apply to the Principal Civil Court for appointment of a new Trustee. When the Trust deed provides for the appointment of a Trustees and Managing Trustee by prescribing a specific mode and as per the mode prescribed by the Trust deed, other Trustees elect the Managing Trustee, the same cannot be questioned by the erstwhile Managing Trustee. If the appellant has got any grievance, he ought to have filed the suit challenging the appointment of the first respondent as Managing Trustee. Considering all these aspects, both the Courts below have rightly held that the respondents are entitled to the relief prayed for and I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below and no substantial question of law arises for consideration. 11. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree of the Courts below. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 12. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that this judgment shall not stand in the way of the appellant from contesting for the post of Trustee or Managing Trustee. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 13. According to me, the Courts below did not render any findings regarding disqualification against the appellant and injunction was granted against the appellant, as he ceased to hold the Office as Managing Trustee, after the expiry of the period prescribed for the said post. Hence, the judgment and decree cannot be used against the appellant, if he is otherwise, qualified to become a Trustee or Managing Trustee. Sd/ Asst. Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar sd To 1.The IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. 2.The IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. + 1 cc to Mr.S. Natana rajan, SR.59518 S.A.No.908 of 2011 PA(CO) Eu 17.5.12 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/