T. Varghese George vs Kora K. George & Ors

21. Shri M.S. Ganesh, learned senior counsel appearing for the Chairman and the correspondent of the trust on the other hand submitted that the appellant was working at cross purposes with the trust, and this fact should not be lost sight of. The appellant claims to have arranged contributions of lakhs of rupees to the trust when Smt. Elizabeth Thomas was in the management, and has subsequently started claiming those amounts from the present management. On 24.2.2003, he sent a fax message demanding lakhs of rupees from the trust, and when Shri S. Palamalai visited Kottayam, the appellant threatened him to return the amounts which led the correspondent to lodge a complaint with the police on 26.2.2003. Smt. Elizabeth Thomas and the appellant were hand in gloves, and, therefore although she withdrew her appeal to this Court, she recommended the appellant for being taken in the formal meetings of the board by her letter dated 22.1.2003, and in spite of the above referred incident on 26.2.2003 she once again wrote to the Chairman of trust that his moneys be returned.

27. It is material to note that the Division Bench had framed the scheme by its order dated 4.12.1995, after calling upon Smt. Elizabeth Thomas to give her proposals which she had declined to do so. Still, with a view only to give one more opportunity to her, this Court remanded the matter once again to the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court which heard the matter after remand appointed 21 Justice J. Kankaraj, a retired Judge of Madras High Court as the interim Chairman, and a retired IAS Office Shri Palamalai as the Executive Trustee and Correspondent in April 2002. Hon'ble Justice J. Kankaraj made the necessary reports to the Division Bench and pointed out that Smt. Elizabeth was mis-managing the trust. The Division Bench considered all the aspects and proposals including that of Smt. Elizabeth Thomas for framing the scheme and framed an appropriate scheme by its order dated 5.12.2002. Apart from the appellant, and Smt. Elizabeth hardly anybody has raised any grievance with respect to the functioning of the Chairman or the Correspondent. The appellant did not choose to initiate any proceedings with respect to the functioning of the trust as required under Section 92. After the scheme was finalized, although Smt. Elizabeth filed an appeal, she withdrew the same. It was at this stage that the appellant filed the present appeal raising the issues that he has raised. The correct course of action for him ought to have been to file his suit under Section 92, if he deemed it fit.

(ii) CMP No.10340 and 10341 of 2005 were filed by one Shri V.G. Panneerselvam and Shri C.V.W Davidson to join in the proceeding as additional applicants. However, since CMP Nos. 5673 of 2003, 5560 of 2005 and 9402 of 2006 were being dismissed on merits, the Court did not entertain these two CMPs also. These two CMPs for impleadment were therefore disposed of alongwith the said common order. This common order dated 21.9.2007 has led to SLP Nos.22590 and 22591 of 2007. They are being heard and decided along with Civil Appeal No. 6786 of 2003.

33. Having seen the scenario and the legal position, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in our view there was no error in the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of Madras High Court dated 5.12.2002 on O.S.A 49 of 1995 in holding that T. Thomas Educational Trust is a secular public charitable trust 26 and not a minority institution. The High Court was accordingly justified in framing the scheme under Section 92 of CPC to see to it that the trust is administered in a better way. We find the scheme to be in the interest of the trust. We have perused the common order of the Division Bench dated 21.9.2007 in CMP Nos. 5673 of 2003, 5560 of 2005, 9402 of 2006 and CMP No. 10340 and 10341 of 2005. The High Court has held on merits that the appellant had failed to make out any case of mis-management against the Chairman or the correspondent, and we do not find any error in the High Court order in that behalf. We do not find any merit in the Contempt Petition No. 435 of 2004 either. In the circumstances, Civil Appeal No. 6786 of 2003, Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 22590-22591 OF 2007 and Contempt Petition (C) No. 435 of 2004 are all dismissed. There will however be no order as to costs.