Case: Kt. N. Rm. Thenappa Chettiar &amp; Ors Vs. N. S. Kr. Karuppan Chettiar &amp; Ors

2. In the suit which is the subject-matter of this appeal, the plaintiffs prayed for the settlement of a scheme in respect of a Trust known as Sina Ravanna Mana Pana Sona Guru Puja Mutt at Pillamangalam Alagapuri, Tiruchnapalli District and for an account of the management of the Trust by the late N. S. Chokalingam Chettair and for certain incidental reliefs. The case of the plaintiffs was that the Trust was a joint foundation made on November 12, 1919 by Sinnakaruppan Chettiar, father of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and grand-father of plaintiff 3, Raman Chettiar, father of plaintiff No. 4 Subramaniam Chettiar plaintiff No. 5, Perianan Chettiar, father of defendant No. 3 and Chokalingam Chettiar, father of defendant No. 1 and grandfather of defendant No. 2. It was said that the Trust was founded for conducting puja to God Vinayagar installed in the Mutt, by an Oduvar, to do special pujas for the Samayarcharyars, viz., Appah, Sundarar, Sambhandar and Manickavachakar and ordinary pujas to the other 63 Nayanmars on their birth days; to conduct a Thevaram Patasala, and feeding the pupils. It was alleged that at the time of the foundation Chockalingam Chettiar contributed Rs. 25,000/-, Sinnakaruppan Chettiar, Raman Chettiar Subramaniam Chettiar and Perianan Chettiar contributing Rs. 6,250/- each. Hundies were passed by the four contributors for Rupees 6,250 each in favour of the first defendants father on November 12, 1919 and they were cashed in due course. It was alleged that the joint-founders had at the time of foundation appointed Chockalingam Chettiar who was the largest contributor as the manager and executive Trustee and the latter had constructed buildings for the Mutt and bought lands in Manakkarai village, Mannargudi taluk. On November 27, 1943 Chockalingam Chettiar nominated defendant No. 2, his grand-son as the executive Trustee. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that defendant No. 2 had stopped the pujas to the Nayanmars and Samayacharyas and had discontinued the Thevaram school and the feeding of the boys. Several other acts of mismanagement were alleged in the plaint. The suit was mainly contested by the second defendant who alleged that the sole founder of the Mutt was the late N. S. Chockalingam Chettiar, his grandfather, who at first installed the Vinayakar image and also the 63 Nayanmars and established the pujas for the four Samayacharyars and the Nayanmars. He was also the sole trustee and was in exclusive management from the foundation of the trust till November 29, 1943 when by a registered instrument he appointed the second defendant and his descendants as hereditary trustees. It was denied that the plaintiffs were joint founders though they had made contributions for the management of the Mutt. It was said that from the very date of contribution the plaintiffs never bargained for any rights as trustees but they accepted N. S. Chockalingam Chettiar as the sole trustee. The charge of mismanagement was totally denied by the defendants and it was said that the trust was being maintained and conducted on a much grander scale than during the trusteeship of senior Chockalingam. It was asserted that the daily puja to the Vinayakar and the ordinary and special pujas to the Nayanmars and the Samayacharyars were all performed with scrupulous regularity. The suit was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge of Pudukkotai by his judgment dated January 31, 1957. The finding of the Subordinate Judge was that the sole founder of the trust was the senior Chockalingam Chettiar who conducted it with the aid of moneys contributed by himself and other persons and that at the time of the foundation the other four contributors did not reserve for themselves any right in the trusteeship of the Mutt. It was also found by the Subordinate Judge that the charges of mismanagement were unfounded and no case was made out on behalf of the plaintiff for framing a scheme. The judgment of the Subordinate Judge was affirmed by the High Court in Appeal No. 99 of 1957 by its judgment dated April 4, 1961. The High Court substantially agreed with the finding of the Subordinate Judge. It was held by the High Court that the evidence made it quite clear that the contributors agreed to leave the management of the trust solely in charge of the senior Chockalingam. The High Court also agreed with the Subordinate Judge that the plaintiffs had failed to establish that all the contributories were joint founders and that they were entitled to turns of management in Proportion of their contributions. The only matter on which the High Court expressed its disagreement with the Subordinate Judge was with regard to the date of the foundation of the trust. The High Court expressed the view that the trust was founded in 1919 but the Subordinate Judge found that the trust had been founded much earlier though it took a definite shape in the year 1919. As regards the charge of mismanagement, High Court agreed with the Subordinate Judge and held that none of the charges had been established and accordingly there were no grounds made out for the framing of a scheme or the removal of the second defendant from the management of the trust.

Reasoning:
5. As we have already stated, the appellants have failed to prove that all the contributories were the joint founders of the trust and that they were all in turns entitled to management in proportion to the amounts that they had contributed. On the other hand, the evidence makes it quite clear that the contributories agreed to leave the management of the trust solely in the hands of the senior Chockalingam and subsequently of defendant No. 2. We are accordingly of the opinion that Mr. N. C. Chatterjee has been unable to make good his argument on this aspect of the case6. We proceed to consider the next question arising in the appeal, viz., whether the plaintiffs are entitled to ask for the settlement of a scheme even on the assumption that they were not cofounders of thee parties in the case have proceeded on the footing that the trust is a private trust, but the authorities establish that even in the case of a private trust a suit can be filed for the removal of the trustee or for settlement of a scheme for the purpose of effectively carrying out the objects of the trust. If there is a breach of trust or mismanagement on the part of the trustee, a suit can be brought in a civil court by any person interested for the removal of the trustee and for the proper administration of the, for example, Pramatha Nath Mullicks case, 52 Ind App 245 = (AIR 1925 PC 139  ) and Manohar Mookerjee v. Peary Mohan, 24 Cal WN 478 = (AIR 1920 Cal 210) ).There are also authorities to the effect that a Civil Court may frame a scheme in the case of a private endowment at the instance of the parties interested. The question has been discussed by the Calcutta High Court in Bimal Krishnas case, 41 Cal WN 728 = (AIR 1937 Cal 338  ) and it was held in that case that a scheme for the administration of a private endowment can be framed by a Civil Court. Mookerjee, J. observed in that case that in India the Crown is the constitutional protector of all infants and as the deity occupies in law the position of an infant, the shebaits who represent the deity are entitled to seek the assistance of the Court in case of mismanagement, fraud or maladministration on the part of the shebait and to have a proper scheme for management framed for the administration of the private trust. In Pramatha Nath Mullicks case, 52 Ind App 245 = (AIR 1925 PC 139  ) to which we have already made reference, the Judicial Committee itself directed the framing of a scheme in the case of a private endowment and the case was expressly remanded to the trial courts for that purpose. In the present case the appellants being contributors to the trust are interested in the proper administration of the trust and in our opinion, they have a sufficient right to bring a suit in a Civil Court in case there is mismanagement or breach of trust on the part of the managing trustee and for framing of a scheme7. But the question in the present appeal is whether the appellants have made out any grounds for framing of a scheme or for the removal of the second defendant from the management of the trust.It was alleged by the appellants in the plaint that the trust had been mismanaged by the senior Chockalingam and by his, 2nd defendant and both have been guilty of breach of trust. The main charge levelled against defendant No 2 was thee of the pujas and the closing down of the Thevara Patasala and the feeding of the pupils. The Subordinate Judge has examined the evidence dealing with the charge and found that it was not established. The High Court, upon analysis of the evidence has reached the same conclusion. It was also alleged by the appellants that Account Books Exs.9 and0 have been fabricated by defendant No. 2 but the Subordinate Judge and the High Court both held that the allegation was not true. Certain other charges were also levelled by the plaintiffs against defendant No. 2 and senior Chockalingam but the High Court as well as the Subordinate Judge found that these charges were not substantiated.The question whether defendant No. 2 or the senior Chockalingam was guilty of breach of trust or of acts of mismanagement is a question of fact and in view of the concurrent finding of both the lower courts on this question we are of opinion that no ground has been made out on behalf of the appellants for framing of a scheme or for removal of defendant No. 2 from the office of the managing trustee. It follows that the suit brought by the appellants has been rightly dismissed.