# KT. N. RM. THENAPPA CHETTIAR & ORS v. N. S. KR. KARUPPAN CHETTIAR & ORS •

- **Citation:** [1968] 2 S.C.R. 897
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1968-01-31
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 355 of 1965
- **Bench:** J. C. Shah, V. Ramaswami
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/kt-n-rm-thenappa-chettiar-ors-v-n-s-kr-karuppan-chettiar-ors-4260
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Trust-founded for certain religious purposes with contributions from
a nun1her of persons-whether all of them 'follnders' of th~ ·1r11It-Ril!ht
of any one interested in proper 111a11age1ne11r of trust ·10 file a suit for re1noval of managing trustee or for frcmlng a sche1ne of 1nanag~ment.
The appellants filed a suit praying for the settlement of a scheme in
respect of a trust and f\Jr an account of the n1anagement of the trust by
C and for certain incidental reliefs.
Their case \Vas that the trust was a
joint foundation made on November 12. 1919 by the ancestors of various
parties to the suit and the first ··espondent's late father C;
that
it was
founded for conducting certain special and ordinary Pujas 10 the Mutt
and for the feeding of the pupils. It was alleged that at the time of the
foundation C contributed Rs. 25,000 and four others contributed Rs. 6,250
each and the joint founders had ~t the time of foundation appointed C,
\vho was the 1argest conlributor. as the Manager and executive trustee.
On November 27, 1943 C had nominated the. second respondent. his
grandson, as the executive trustee.
Various ~lleiations of mismanagement
of the trust were made against the second respondent claiming t~at he
had stopped the Pujas and various other activities for which the 1rust wa~
created. The Trial Cotirt disrn-issed the suit on the findin~ that C was
the sole founder of the. trust who had conducted it with the monev 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. lt also held that the charges of mismanagement
were ...:nfounded and no case was made out for fr:iming: a sc~me. An
appeal to the High Court was dismissed.
On appeal to this Court.
HELD : (i) The High Court was right in finding the appellants had
failed to establish that they were joint founders of the trus• and that thev
\Vere entitled in turns to management in proportion to their contribution.
It is not a correct proposition of law to state tha' every donor contri-
...:
buting at the time of foundation of a trust becom-:s a founder of the trust.
lt may be that in a particular case all the contributors of a trust fund be~
come the founders of the trust itself, but the question when a contributor
would become in law a joint founder of the trust would depend not inere1y
upon the fact of his contribution but also upon the s.urrounding circum-
•
G
~tances proved in the parliC'Ular case and the subsequent conduct of the
parties. [901 HJ
H
fo the Matter of the Endowed Schools Act, 1869-and Tn the Malter
of the St. Leonard, Shoreditch, Parochial Schools.
10
A.C.
304 and
Settikara Venkataran1a ChetJiar v. 0. P. Damodarc1n Chettiar, 51 M.L.J.
457: refc.rred to.
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 cffc.ctively
ca"rrying 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
898
SUPREME COURT llEPOllTS
[1968] 2 S.C.R.
proper administration of lhe endowment.
In the present case the appellants being contributors to 1he trust were interested in the proper administration of •he trust and had a sufficient right to bring a suit in ca<;e there
w~ mismanagement or breach of trust on. the.part of the managing trus:U
and for framing of a scheme. However, m view of the concurrent lindma
of both the lower Courls 1hat the llllegaliollll of breach of tru.'1 or ~
management had not been established, no grou.id had been made out on
behalf of lhe appellants for framing of a scheme or for the removal of
the second respondent. [904 A.CJ
Pramotha Nath Mu//ick's case. 52 I.A. 245; Manahar Maalerj" "·
Peary Mohan, 24 C.W.N. 478; and Bimal Krizhna'r case, 41 C.W.N. 728;
ttferred to.

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
KT. N. RM. THENAPPA CHETTIAR & ORS.
v.
N. S. KR. KARUPPAN CHETTIAR & ORS •
. January 31, 1968
(J. C. SHAH AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.]
Trust-founded for certain religious purposes with contributions from
a nun1her of persons-whether all of them 'follnders' of th~ ·1r11It-Ril!ht
of any one interested in proper 111a11age1ne11r of trust ·10 file a suit for re1noval of managing trustee or for frcmlng a sche1ne of 1nanag~ment.
The appellants filed a suit praying for the settlement of a scheme in
respect of a trust and f\Jr an account of the n1anagement of the trust by
C and for certain incidental reliefs.
Their case \Vas that the trust was a
joint foundation made on November 12. 1919 by the ancestors of various
parties to the suit and the first ··espondent's late father C;
that
it was
founded for conducting certain special and ordinary Pujas 10 the Mutt
and for the feeding of the pupils. It was alleged that at the time of the
foundation C contributed Rs. 25,000 and four others contributed Rs. 6,250
each and the joint founders had ~t the time of foundation appointed C,
\vho was the 1argest conlributor. as the Manager and executive trustee.
On November 27, 1943 C had nominated the. second respondent. his
grandson, as the executive trustee.
Various ~lleiations of mismanagement
of the trust were made against the second respondent claiming t~at he
had stopped the Pujas and various other activities for which the 1rust wa~
created. The Trial Cotirt disrn-issed the suit on the findin~ that C was
the sole founder of the. trust who had conducted it with the monev 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. lt also held that the charges of mismanagement
were ...:nfounded and no case was made out for fr:iming: a sc~me. An
appeal to the High Court was dismissed.
On appeal to this Court.
HELD : (i) The High Court was right in finding the appellants had
failed to establish that they were joint founders of the trus• and that thev
\Vere entitled in turns to management in proportion to their contribution.
It is not a correct proposition of law to state tha' every donor contri-
...:
buting at the time of foundation of a trust becom-:s a founder of the trust.
lt may be that in a particular case all the contributors of a trust fund be~
come the founders of the trust itself, but the question when a contributor
would become in law a joint founder of the trust would depend not inere1y
upon the fact of his contribution but also upon the s.urrounding circum-
•
G
~tances proved in the parliC'Ular case and the subsequent conduct of the
parties. [901 HJ
H
fo the Matter of the Endowed Schools Act, 1869-and Tn the Malter
of the St. Leonard, Shoreditch, Parochial Schools.
10
A.C.
304 and
Settikara Venkataran1a ChetJiar v. 0. P. Damodarc1n Chettiar, 51 M.L.J.
457: refc.rred to.
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 cffc.ctively
ca"rrying 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
898
SUPREME COURT llEPOllTS
[1968] 2 S.C.R.
proper administration of lhe endowment.
In the present case the appellants being contributors to 1he trust were interested in the proper administration of •he trust and had a sufficient right to bring a suit in ca<;e there
w~ mismanagement or breach of trust on. the.part of the managing trus:U
and for framing of a scheme. However, m view of the concurrent lindma
of both the lower Courls 1hat the llllegaliollll of breach of tru.'1 or ~
management had not been established, no grou.id had been made out on
behalf of lhe appellants for framing of a scheme or for the removal of
the second respondent. [904 A.CJ
Pramotha Nath Mu//ick's case. 52 I.A. 245; Manahar Maalerj" "·
Peary Mohan, 24 C.W.N. 478; and Bimal Krizhna'r case, 41 C.W.N. 728;
ttferred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 355 of
1965.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
April 4, 1961 of the Madras High Court in Appeal No. 99 of
1957.
N. C. Chatterjee, R. Thiagarajan for R. Ganapathy Iyer, for
lhe appellants.
K. Gopa/achari and R. Gopa/akrishnan, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Ramru;wami, J. This appeal is brought on behalf of the plaintilfs, by special leave, against the judgment of the Madras High
Court dated April 4, 1961 in Appeal No. 99 of 1957.
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 dn account of the management of the Trust by the late N. S. Chockalingam Chcttiar and for certain incidental reliefs.
The case of
the plaintiffs was that the Trust was a joint foundation made on
November I 2, 19 I 9 by Sinnakaruppan Chettiar, father of plaintiffs I and 2 a.nd grand-father of plaintiffs 3, Raman Chettiar,
father of plaintiff no. 4, Subramaniam Chettiar Plaintiff no. S,
Perianan Chettiar. father of defendant no. 3 and Chockalingam
Chettiar, father of defendant no. 1 and grand-father 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
!pecial pujas for the Samayarcharyars,
vii:;.,
Appar, Sundarnr,
Sambhandar and Manickavachakar and ordinary pujas to the other
63 Nayanmars on their birth days; to conduct a Thevaram PatasaJa, and feeding the pupils.
It was alleged that at the time of
the foundation Chockalingam Chettiar contributed Rs. 2S,000/-
Sinnakaruppan Chettiar, Raman Chettiar, Subramaniam Chettiar,
and Perianan Chettiar contributing Rs. 6,250/- each.
Hundie!
were passed by the four contributors for Rs. 6,250 each in favour
A
ll
c
D
E
G
H
••
-
A
B
c
D
E
THESAPPA v. KARUPPAN (Ramaswami, I.)
899
of the first defendant's 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 Chokalingam 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
Thevararn school and the feeding of the boys. Several other acts
of mis-management 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. Chockalingarn 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 ?ef.endant and hi~ ~escendant~ ~s heredit111'.
trustees.
It was denied that the plamuffs were 1omt-founders. ·
though they had made contributions .{Qr 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 mis-management 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 the 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 re~.ula- ·
F
rity.
The suit was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge of Pudu-,
· klmtai 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
gf moneys contributed by himself and other persons and th:;ii at
the time of the foundation the other four contributo~s did not
G
H
re!Crve for themselves any right in the trusteeship of the Mutt.
It was also found by the Subordinate Judge that the charges of
mis-management were unfounded and no case was made 'out on
behalf of the plaintiffs 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 Chocka!ingarn.
The High Court also agreed with the· Subordinate Judge that the
900
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
fl 968] 2 s.c.R.
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 mis-management,
the High Court agreed with the Subordinate Judge and held that
non.: 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.
The first · q11esuon to be considered in this appeal is whether
the appellants are right in their contention that they were joint
founders of the trust along with the senior Chockalingam. It
was contended on their behalf that Exs. A-1 and A-3 described
the contributions of the sum of Rs. 6,250/- as having been made
towards I/8th 'Pangu' or share.
Reference was also made to
Ex. A-5, ledger account of the Mutt in which the contribution is
descri~d as the share capital.
It was pointed out by Mr. N. C.
Chatterjee thafthe vilasam of the trust S.R.M.P.A.S. supports the
claim of the appellants that they were joint founders. The High
Court has, however, rightly pointed out that these two circumstances are not decisive. There is on the contrary an admission on
behalf of the first plaintiff that the contributories were not treated
as founders.
In the course of his evidence the 5th plaintiff as
P.W. I stated as follows :
"As Chockalingam Chettiar he!d the largest number
of shares the other four requested him to administer the
suit trust maintain accounts and render accounts to the
four other shares on demand ............ AU the five
pangudars were present when the decisions to found
the charity was arrived at.
We decided that senior
Chockalingam should manage the charity to be founded.
None of us demanded that the pangudars should
administer the trust by rotation. None of us suggested
that the te•ms of the endowment should be reduced to
writing.
We wanted senior Chockalingam to consult
us with reference to important matters pertaining to the
administratfon.
We did not define· the nature of the
matters with reference to which we should be consulted.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
II
A
B
c
D
.F
G
H
THENAPPA V. KARUPPAN (Ramaswami, l.)
./
./
Since the inception of the trust no meeting of the five
pangudars was ever held.
Nor were minutes of such
proceedings kept. Chockalingam used to have informal
consultations with us. At no time, between 1919 and
1945, the year. of senior Chockalingam's death did we
ever call upon him to show us his accounts. Nor did
he show us his accounts. We never asked him to what
the total income from the lands and buildings was.
I
do not remember the particulars of information which
senior Chockalingam voluntarily gave us."
90!
The conduct of the parties subsequent to the foundation of the trust
is also not consistent with the claim now' putJorward on behalf
of the appe!lants. Senior Chockalingam:,, acquired considerable
properties between 1919 and 1945 on behalf of the trust. Exhibit
B-2, dated June 23, 1920, Ex, B-3; dated January 27, l927,
Ex. B-5, dated June 18, 1931,_.Ex<. B;6:datecl June 22, 1931.
Ex. B-7 dated January 4, 1934, Ex, B-8 dated March 2, 1934.
Ex. B-9 dated September 30 1934, Ex.
B-10 dated September
30, 1934, Ex. B-11 dated June 6, 1936 and Ex. B-12 dated
April 5, 1937 are all sale deeds solely in the name of the senior
Chockalingam. The mutt bui)ding had always stood in the name
of the senior ChockaJingam in the register of Alagapuri Panchayat
Union.
The oral evidence adduced on behalf of the respondents
which has been accepted both by the Subordinate Judge and by
the High Court also shows that there was a total non-interference
on the part of the plaintiffs in the management of Chockalingam
till he app:iinted the second defendant as his succeeding trustee
under Ex. B-1 and there was a total non-interference also with
the management of the second defendant after that date.
P.W. 1
alS<> admitted in his evidence
that the second defendant
was
appointed as the successor of senior Chockalingam and at the
time of the appointment all the plaintiffs and defendant no. 3
agreed that defendant no. 2 should be so appointed as the sole
managing trustee. If the plaintiffs had any right· to· manage the
trust by turns, as they now claim. it is not likely that they would
have agreed to the second defendant being appointed as the sole
trustee in place of senior Chockalingam.
In our opinion, the
High Court was right in reaching the finding that the p'aintiffs
have failed to establish that they were the joint founders of the
trust or that they were entitled in turns to management in proportion to their contributions.
It is not a correct proposition of law to state that every dono~
contributing at the time of foundation of a trust becomes a founder of the trust. It may be that in a particular case all the contributors of a trust fund become the founders of the trust itself, but
the question when a contributor would become in law a joint
·founder of the trust would depend not merely upon the fact of his
,.
902
SUPREME COUllT REPORTS
(1968] 2 s.c.R.
contribution "ut also upon the surrounding circumstances proved
in the particular case and the subsequent conduct of the parties.
Jn In the Matter of the Endowed Schools Act, 1869-and In the
Matter of the St. Leonard, Shoreditch, Parochial Schools(')
it
was held by the House of Lords that where a charity is established b~ subscriptions the original subscribers alone
are
the
founders, and the later benefactions are on the footing
of the
original foundation.
At page 308 of the Report Earl of Selbome,
L.C. stated :
"Now let us consider what is the reasonable manner
of applying to such a charity the word 'founder'.
It
is reasonably clear that not every subscriber or contributor could be a
founder having control
over
the
school, or capable within the meaning
of the Act of
Parliament of impressing on it, by his own act or by
his own authority a denominational character.
It i>
also reasonably plain, when you have once started with
a foundation in 1705, though by smail beginnings, yet
that everything afterwards added, every accretion to the
original subscriptions, which was not an endowment for
any new and
special purpose, must be taken to
be
upon the footinl! of the original foundation; not a new
foundation, but something contributed for the purpose
of the original foi:odation .............. Now it is
quite cot\ceivable that a number of per;ons mi?ht have
met at that time, and mi~ht have come tQ a comm'JO
agreement as to the purposes for which
they should
subscribe and solicit subscriptions; a'ld if th1~ had been
embodied in writin!!, and if th·"y had solicited subsc,iptions on the footing that either
they
themselves
were to make a law for the char:ty and giv~ it s·a•ut~s.
or that this was to be done by o·h~rs in a particular
manner, or if in any original documents soliciti.n,f subJcriptions there had been a written law laid .,t}6wn for
the charity expressing the purposes for which it was to
be founded, those persons so initiating .tlfe subscriptions, and so declaring the purpose for which ·they were ·
made and solicited, might be regarded
as
founders
within the meaning of this clause..,But it
app~ars to
their Lordships to be q11ite impossible to attribute that
d1aracter to those who come after them-wh~thcr they
contributed to the building fund ·Or any other fund in aid
..:if the existin!! charity or notJ They did not found the
·~harity; they found it existing; they merely aided and
.assisted it."
(I)" l" :t..C. 3114.
A
c
D
E
G
'
H
A
B
c
D
F
G
8
THENAPP,A v. KARUPPAN (Ramaswami, J.)
903
In Sattikara Venkatarama Chettiar v. 0. P. Damodaram Chettiar(') there was a deed of trust executed by V in favour of 19
persons known as Chettithanakaras which stated that he a.lone was
unable to make and set up idols of Ramalingam and Choudeswari
Amman in the Choudeswari Amman Temple Devasthanam built
by him and that the nineteen persons agreed to raise a fund and
to put up the idol in the temple anj according to the a~eei;n.ent
that they set up the idols of Rama,ingam and Choudeswljff Animan
and they agreed to purchase property for endowing the temple.
and the document then went on to state "that the nineteen p~rsons
should manage the temple from generation to gi;neration."1 /Funds
were coliected by V and by the ninete€'n persons mentioned in. the
document; they built the. temple installed the idols in it, and collected funds for the upkeep of. the temple and managed the temple
under the deed of trust.
It was held by the Madras High Court
that the deed of trust conferred the hereditary right to the trμsteeship upon V and tile nineteen Chettithankars. -At page· 461 of
the Report the High Court stated as follows :
"If persons invite subscriptions on a representation
that they would devote the subscriptions so ,collected to
a particular purpose and they divert the subscriptions to
some other purpose the subscribers have tsf object to the
funds being diverted to other purposes/than those for
which they were collected.
But so loefg as the subscribers do not object to the person· or P,ersons collecting
subscriptions for building or endowing any particular
institution, the person or persons so building or and endowing it have the right to provide for its management
for all time to come.
There is nothing in the evidence
to show that the persons w~o/ga~e subscriptions gave
them on the understanding that the founders should not
have the hereditary right . of management.
All that
appears from Ex. A is, that subscriptions were collected,
funds were raised, a temple was built and idols were
installed and the management was in the hands of Venkatarama Chetti and others and all of them."
As we. have already stated, the appellants have failed to prove
that all the contribuwrjes 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 in11,1i te cleat 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
acocrdingly of the opinion that Mr. N. C. Chatterjee has been
lll)able tomake good his argument on this aspect of the case.
(1) 51 M.~.J. 547.
904
SUPREME o6URT REPORTS
[1968] 2 S.C.R.
We proceed to coos~ the next question aris;ng in this appcaJ,
viz., whether the p!ori'ntifij are entitled to ask for the settlement
of a scheme even on tlie a~umption that they were not co-founders
of the trust. .The parties in this 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 endowment.-( See, for example, Pramatha Nath. Mullick's case(')
and Manohar Mookerjee v. Peary Mohan('), There are also authorities to the effect that a Civil Court may frame a scheme in !he
case of a private endowment at the ins•ance of the parties interested.
The question has been discussed by the Ca!cu;ta High
Court in Bi ma/ Krishna's case(8 ) and it was held in that case that
a scheme for the administration of a private endowment can be
framed by a Civil Court.
Mookerjce. 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 managemept framed for the administration of the private trust.
In Pramatha Nath Mu/lick's(') case 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 court for that purpost..
Io the
present case the appellants being contributors to the trust are
interested in the proper administration of the trust and, in out
opinion, they h'ave 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 fer framing of a scheme.
A
B
c
D
E
F
But the question in the present appeal is whether the appellants
have made out any grounc!S, for framing of a scheme or for the
removal of the second defe.ndant from the management of the trust.
It was alleged by the apJ>,C!}lants in .the plaints that the trust had
G
been mismanaged by the,~enior Chockalingam and by his grandson, 2nd defendant and;botb have been guilty of breach of trust.
The main char¥e Jeveljed against defendant no. 2 was the nonperformance of the pujas and the closing down of the Thevara
Patasala and the feeding of the pupils. The Subordinate Judge ha~
examined the evidence dealing with the charge and found that it
H
(I) 52 IA 245.
(2) 24 C.W.N. 478.
(3) 41 C.W.N. 72 .
A
B
G
.L
THENAPPA v. KARUPPAN (Ramaswami, J.)
905
was not established. The High Court, upon a11alysis of the evidence, has reached the same conclusion. It was also alleged by the
appellants that Account Books/ Exs. A-9 and A-10 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.
For these reasons we hold that the judgment of the High Court
dated April 4, 1961 in Appeal No. 99 of 1957 is correct and this
appeal must be dismissed with costs.
R.K.P:s.
Appeal dismissed .
L3Sup.C. l./68-l 6-l-69-2,500-GIPF.