THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA C.M.A.No.1234 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated 9.11.2009 in I.A.No.1265 of 2009 in O.S. No. 171 of 2009 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Guntur, whereby and whereunder the application filed by the appellants herein under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for temporary injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the functions of the appellants and in discharging their duties as trustees of the first appellant trust-‘Vinayashramamu’. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred to as the appellants and the respondents as arrayed in this C.M.A. 3. The averments of the affidavit accompanying the application filed by the appellants before the court below, are as follows: The first appellant is the Public Trust known as ‘Vinayashramamu’, situated at Kalyanakavuru of Cherukupalli Mandal, Guntur District, represented by the third appellant-Jagarlamudi Narendranath, registered under the Societies Act. It was stated that the first appellant trust was formed by the freedom fighters way back in the year 1933 and was having its own constitution ‘Dharmasasanam’ and it is granted exemption under Endowments Act. It was stated that huge properties are under the management of the first appellant trust. It was stated that the trust has to be run by the Managing Trustee and as on 17.10.2008, appellants 3 to 6 are the trust board members consequent upon the resignation of the then Chairman, Managing Trustee-defendant No.1-Gogineni Nageswara Rao, who has resigned his post on account of his ill-health and the third appellant assumed charge and managing the affairs. It was stated that soon after, the defendants 1 to 3 being local persons, with help of anti social elements, started causing obstructions in discharging the functions by the third appellant and as such, the third appellant filed a petition before the District Collector, Guntur, wherein the first defendant took a stand stating that his signatures were obtained at the resolution by exerting pressure, and the District Collector caused an enquiry through the Revenue Divisional Officer and the District Cooperative Officer and after submission of their respective reports, it was concluded that the first defendant is no more in the office and the appellant No.3 is the managing trustee of the appellant trust and passed orders in R.C.No.4638/2008/AR dated 05.01.2009. Aggrieved by the said orders, the defendants filed writ petitions and this court quashed the orders of the District Collector stating that the District Collector has no such powers, and the enquiry was caused without power. Taking advantage of the orders of this court, the respondent filed Trust O.P.No.93 of 2009 before the IV Additional District Judge and the said O.P. was disposed of with an observation that the conduct of the respondent is questionable and the O.P. is beyond the scope of Section 34 of the Indian Trust Act,1982. Since the defendants creating hurdles in the management and functioning of the trust, the appellants filed the suit for declaration along with the present interlocutory application. 4. On the other hand, the respondent- second defendant filed a counter inter alia stating that as per Cause 25 and 19 of the Trust Deed ‘Dharmasasanam’ maximum number of trust members should be ‘5’ including managing trustee. It was stated that by 12.08.2000, after the death of Bathina Bhujanga Rao, the then managing trustee, a resolution was passed and the first defendant Gogineni Nageswara Rao had become life time managing trustee of the trust along with G.Kotiah, Pavuluri Siva Ramakrishnaiah, Pavuluri Bala Krishna. Tummala Narendranath was appointed in the place of Tummala Venkata ratnam and it was confirmed and continued as per the resolution dated 30.06.2007, which shall be in force for about 5 years. It was stated that on 28.09.2008, as per the earlier resolution dated 08.6.2008, the appellants 5 and 6 were removed from the trust board and filled up the vacancies by appointing defendants 2 and 3 . It was stated that as the third appellant was not regularly attending the office and did not even take the oath of office, a resolution was passed on 5.4.2009 and a show cause notice was issued to the third appellant on 05.5.2009 and thereafter, on 15.5.2009, a resolution was passed declaring the respondent-Tummalla Tulasidas, Gogineni Nageswara Rao life time trustee, Gaddipati Pardhasaradhi, Tummala Tata Rao, Narendranath are the trust board members, and they were pressurized to put their signature on the resolution and started causing interruption in the management and in fact, the so called trust board as claimed by the appellants, never functioned, and in fact, they called upon the respondent to hand over the records and it would go to show that the records are still in the management and control of the respondent, and as the proceedings of the District Collector were quashed by this court, the same cannot be looked into. 5. Basing on the pleadings, the following point was framed for consideration: Whether the petitioners (appellants herein) are entitled to temporary injunction as prayed for? 6. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the appellants Exs.P.1 to P.14 were marked and on behalf of the respondent Exs.R.1 to R.13 were marked. 7. The court below after taking into consideration the documentary evidence brought on record by both the parties and also after hearing the contentions raised by the respective counsel, came to the conclusion that the appellants are not entitled for interim injunction, as they could not prima facie establish the case and there is no balance of convenience in their favour. Challenging the same, the appellants filed this C.M.A. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that there was no resolution appointing the respondent as trustee of the first appellant trust, as such question of his further appointment as Managing Trustee of the first appellant trust and Chairman of the second appellant institution would not arise; that the resolutions-Exs.P.2 to P.4 dated 17.10.2008, 18.10.2008 and 22.11.2008 respectively prima facie show that appellant No.3 was elected as Managing Trustee of the first appellant trust and therefore, the respondent cannot interfere with the functions and management of first and second appellants; that the court below erred in holding that if really the first defendant has voluntarily resigned to the office of the Managing Trustee on account of his ill health, why all of sudden he changed his mind and caused obstruction in the management which forced the third appellant to give an application to the District Collector. But in fact, the first defendant has admitted in implead petition in WPMP No.23909 of 2009 in W.P.No.16215 of 2009 that the respondent herein was appointed as Managing Trustee of the first appellant trust and Chairman of the second appellant institution in his place due to his ill-health, as per resolution dated 17.10.2008 and that he is continuing as trustee. The learned counsel contended that the only dispute is whether the third appellant is the Managing Trustee of the first appellant trust or the respondent herein; that the court below committed error in holding that the third appellant could not have assumed office, for which he sought intervention of the District Collector; that the court below failed to see letter dated 24.10.2008, which shows that the third appellant assumed office as Managing Trustee of the first appellant trust and Chairman of the second appellant institution immediately after election on 17.10.2008; the court below erred in holding that the third appellant has not assumed office since he wrote a letter dated 16.1.2009 requesting the outgoing Managing Trustee to hand over all the records pertaining to the above two organisations along with all the keys; that the court below failed to see that assuming office is quite different from handing over records and keys; that the court below failed to consider that the third appellant has been discharging the functions as managing trustee which is evident from the vouchers dated 15.12.2008, 19.12.2008 in respect of payments made to the labourers who worked in the second appellant institution and also payment of salaries to the entire staff; that the court below failed to consider that on a complaint dated 20.10.2008 made by G.Nageswara Rao and another complaint made by J.Narendranath, dated 24.10.2008, the District Collector, Guntur got the matter enquired as a mediator through the Revenue Divisional Officer and the District Cooperative Officer and held that the maximum number of trustees could be only five and they are (1) G.Nageswara Rao, (2) Jagarlamudi Narendranath, (3) Pavuluri Bala Krishna, (4) Tummala Narendranath and (5) Pavuluri Siva Rama Krishnaiah, and directed fresh election of the Managing Trustee, since the first defendant complained that he did not voluntarily resign, and accordingly another meeting of trust board of five permanent trustees was held on 12.1.2009 in which the third appellant was again elected; the court below failed to consider that the respondent herein was not even admitted as a trustee as on 17.10.2008 when he is alleged to have been elected prior to the time of election of the third appellant; that the court below failed to consider that no meetings of the trust board were held after the meeting dated 8.6.2008 in which the third appellant was elected as a trustee in the place of Gogineni Kanakaiah and the meetings dated 15.7.2008,17.08.2008,21.9.2008 and 28.9.2008 were not held and no agenda notices were served on the trustees, and as such the said meetings are invalid; that the court below failed to consider that the term of office of Tummala Narendranath and Pavuluri Balakrishna was expired and in the said vacancies Tummala Tulasidas and G.Pardhasaradhi were elected is not true and correct. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 10. The first appellant trust-Vinayashramamu was inaugurated by father of the nation Mahathma Gandhi and many freedom fighters were associated with the first appellant trust. The main dispute in the instant case is with regard to administration and management of the first appellant Trust-Vinayashramamu, and the second appellant institution - Professor N.G.Ranga Krishi Vignan Kendra. Based on the proceedings of the District Collector dated 5.1.2009, the third appellant is claiming that he is the Managing trustee of the first appellant trust and Chairman of the second appellant institution. The said proceedings admittedly were quashed by this court. A perusal of the representation dated 24.10.2008 given by the third appellant to the District Collector goes to show that the third appellant not yet assumed the office as on that date and he sought indulgence of the District Collector. From the letter dated 16.01.2009 addressed by the third appellant to the first defendant, it can be presumed that the third appellant not assumed the office as on that date. The contention of the appellants is that the first defendant ceased to be the Managing Trustee in view of the proceedings of the District Collector dated 5.1.2009. But it is not explained why they moved resolution on 12.01.2009 for no confidence against first defendant in the presence of the Joint Collector. We have perused the original record produced by both the parties before the court below in I.A.No.1265 of 2009. The documents and registers filed on behalf of the appellants do not contain the continuity of resolutions or page numbers and as such, they could not prima facie establish that the third appellant is the Managing Trustee of the first appellant trust and Chairman of the second appellant institution. Whereas the documents and registers filed by the respondent are original records with continuity of resolutions and also page numbers. Therefore, it can be said that the documents filed by the respondent are authentic and as such they can be relied on. 11. The appellants filed the suit to declare the third appellant as the managing trustee of the first appellant trust and Ex-officio Chairman of the second appellant institution. Since the third appellant failed to establish prima facie case that he is the managing trustee of the first appellant trust, granting temporary injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the functions of the third appellant and in discharging his duties would not arise. As such, the court below has not committed any error in dismissing the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC for interim injunction. Further, the other contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be gone into at the interlocutory stage as they have vital bearing on the main case and they can be raised during the course of trial in the suit. 12. In the result, the C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________ (V.V.S. RAO,J) _______________ (B.N. RAO NALLA, J) -02-2010 Stp