Southern Railway Mazdoor Union vs Mazdoor Welfare Trust and Others

S. Ashok Kumar, J.—Original Application No: 83 of 2005 has been filed for grant of an ad interim injunction restraining the first and second

respondents from in any manner interfering with the administration of the 6th respondent college and to appoint an Administrator to administer the

affairs of the 6th respondent college pending disposal of the suit.

Original Application No:153 of 2004 has been filed to grant an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants 2 to 5 from

withdrawing any amount lying to the credit of the first respondent trust and the sixth respondent college, except for the expenses for the day to day

administration of the college which is to be accounted pending disposal of the suit.

Original Application No:154 of 2004 has been filed to grant an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants 2 to 5 from

functioning as Trustees of the first respondent Trust pending disposal of the suit.

Original Application No:155 of 2004 has been filed to appoint a Receiver to take charge and be in management of the sixth respondent college,

pending disposal of the suit.

Original Application No: 425 of 2005 has been filed to appoint an Administrator to administer the affairs of the 6th respondent college pending

disposal of the suit.

Original Application No: 29 of 2005 has been filed to grant an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants 1 to 3 or their

agents and assignees from illegally removing or in any way acting detrimental to the interest of the applicant/4th defendant as the qualified Trustee

of the first defendant-Trust, pending disposal of the suit.

Original Application No:211 of 2005 has been filed to implead Mr. V.R. Palani @ Palaniappan, residing at No.94, chinnayyapalayam Road,

Mission 3rd Street Corner, Manampuchavadi, Thanjavur as 7th defendant in the suit.

Original Application No: 206 of 2005 has been filed to issue a direction directing the defendants 2 and 3 to return to the applicant/4th defendant

the blank papers containing signatures extracted from the applicant on 1.5.2004 during the Trust Board Meeting on false representation and

retained by them.

The brief contentions of the applicants/plaintiffs are as follows:-

(a) The plaintiff has filed the suit u/s 92 of the CPC (i) for removal of the defendants 2 to 5 from the office of Managing Trustee and Trustees of the

first defendant viz., Mazdoor Welfare Trust; (ii) to frame a Scheme for the proper administration of the first defendant Trust and its college, viz.,

6th defendant college with due participation among the members of the plaintiff Union; (iii) to grant a permanent injunction restraining defendants 2

to 5 , their men, agents or anybody claiming through them from interfering with the management of the first defendant trust and the 6th defendant

college; and (iv) to direst the defendants 2 to 5 to render accounts from February 2001 of the first defendant trust and the 6th defendant college.

(b) The first plaintiff is a registered trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act comprising as its members employees of the Southern

Railway. The second and third plaintiffs are the President and Assistant General Secretary of the first plaintiff Union. The plaintiff Union had

desired to establish an educational institution for the benefit of railway men and with the avowed purpose, the Trust by name Mazdoor Welfare

Trust was founded and established in the year 1987. Thiru M. Namasivayam who was the then General Secretary of the plaintiff union for a long

number of years was to be the Founder Cum Managing Trustee for life with 2 other Trustees by name P. Srinivasan and N. Govindarajan, both of

whom were the Vice Presidents of the plaintiff Union at the relevant point of time. The object of establishing the trust is to enable establishment of

an educational institution in particular for the benefit of railway men besides the general public and thus the trust is one of public charitable nature

for charitable purposes. The trust was founded with a corpus of Rs.1000/= provided by the said M.Namasivayam, the then general Secretary of

the Union. Thereafter contributions were sought by the plaintiff union from its members. The members of the plaintiff union contributed monies

liberally which were remitted to the first defendant trust. A decision was taken to establish an Engineering College in Thanjavur district and about

60 acres of land was purchased from various persons. The land was purchased at Koilvenni Village, Nagapattinam District, now in Tiruvarur

District. Buildings were put up with furnitures, fittings, machinery and equipments required for an engineering college. The Engineering college got

approval from the All India Council for Technical Education and became functional from the year 1995-96. It got affiliation from the Bharathidasan

University and is presently affiliated to Anna University. The funds for establishing the college and running the same has been completely provided

by donations received from the railway men collected and remitted by the office bearers of the plaintiff union.

(C) In the year 1996 the first defendant trust was managed by the life and Managing Trustee, Thiru Namasivayam along with the two Vice

Presidents of the plaintiff union. In the year 1996, the only son of Mr. Namasivayam passed away in tragic circumstances. The aforesaid incident

was a very rude shock to him and thereafter he kept himself away from almost all public activities. Following the said incident, he co-opted the 5th

defendant who is the son in law of him as the Trustee and also made him Correspondent of the 6th defendant college. Subsequently he nominated

defendants 2, 3 & 4 who are his daughters and son in law as trustees. By that time the then two existing Vice Presidents who were the office

bearers of the plaintiff union resigned from office. The reconstitution of the Board of Trustees of the Trust was not of any significant consequence in

as much as the management and administration of the trust and college continued to be funded and managed in an overall manner by the plaintiff

union and its office bearers and Namsaivayam who was the then General Secretary was at the helm of affairs of the trust and the College. Thiru

Namasivayam started to keep away from all public activities and resigned the office of the Chairman of the college in December 1998 but

however, continued to be the Managing Trustee of the first defendant trust. Though he resigned from the Chairmanship of the college, he continued

to be the Managing Trustee till November 2000. In November, 2000 he resigned his position as Managing Trustee also, but however, continued

to be the life trustee of the trust. In February 2001, he went to Haridhwar, but did not return back and his whereabouts is unknown. Ever since

February/march 2001, the defendants 2 to 4 began to act indifferently and started to function as if the first defendant trust and the 6th defendant

college are their family properties. The railway men continued to contribute till the year 2000. Thereafter the financial position of the college

became substantial and there were surplus funds available.

(d) The defendants 2 to 5 began to siphon the funds of the trust and the college. The defendants 2 to 5 who belonged to ordinary middle class

family have amassed wealth by siphoning and misusing the funds of the trust and the college. There has been gross indiscipline among the Board of

Trustees and the Correspondent of the college and the development of the institution which was significant from 1995-2000 started declining

thereafter. There had been several acts of misfeasance and malfeasance on the part of the defendants and they started openly to demand

commission from the Contractors who undertook works and supplies to the college. The welfare of the students were not taken care of. The

railway men and their children for whose benefit the college was sought to be established were totally ignored. The railway men who had noticed

the significant change in the quality of administration of the college and the trust started making representations to the plaintiff union complaining

about the mal administration of the trust and institution by the defendants 2 to 5.

(e) In the circumstances the office bearers of the plaintiff Union discussed the matter with the defendants requesting them to set right the

administration and also to restore the original scheme by inducting the members of the plaintiff union as trustees along with present set of trustees.

But there had been no positive response. Therefore the plaintiff union was compelled to issue registered notice through their counsel to the

defendants on 1.9.2003 setting out all the above facts and calling upon the defendants to induct at least 3 members of the plaintiff union on the

Board of trustees with two of the existing trustees resigning from the office in order to be in conformity with the exiting terms of the trust deed. In

the alternative, to amend the trust deed, so as to increase the maximum number of trustees and induct 5 members of the plaintiff union to the board

of trustees so as to enable them to participate in the administration of the trust and the college in terms of the objectives of the trust and to set right

the mal administration brought about by the defendants.

(f) A reply was received from the second defendant on 24.9.2003 containing absolutely false and vexatious allegations. The reply notice had gone

to the extent of stating that the plaintiff union has nothing to do with the first defendant trust and that the plaintiff union and its members are not the

beneficiaries of the trust and therefore they have no locus standi to question about the trust. The second defendant also denied the contention that

the trust has established educational institution for the benefit of Railwaymen besides denying that the plaintiff union had not been instrumental in the

collection of the amounts required for the trust and the college. The stand taken by the defendants is not only false and false to their knowledge, but

constitutes a breach of trust. The fact is that the Engineering college is the brain child of the plaintiff union as declared by the then Secretary of the

plaintiff union, who is also the founder and then Managing Trustee. In the light of the facts the stand taken by the defendants that there is no

connection between the plaintiff union and the first defendant trust, that the first defendant was not established for the benefit of railway men that

the railwaymen and the plaintiff union had not contributed to the trust and for the establishment and administration of the college etc., are nothing

but expressions which would disclose acts of breach of trust on the part of the defendants besides the disclosure of their intention to treat the trust

and the college as their family properties for the purpose of misusing and siphoning the funds and properties in their favour for their personal

benefits. The defendants 2 to 4 have been clamoring for commissions and monies from the Correspondent on every account. It appears the second

defendant had undertaken a pooja praying for the return of their missing father Namasivayam and claimed reimbursement of the same from the

trust. The second defendant also demanded Rs.2.75 crores from the Correspondent for the extraordinary poojas conducted by her for the return

of her father. Large amounts of money to the extent of Rs.5 crores are lying to the credit of the first defendant trust and the 6th defendant college.

The defendants 2 to 4 are pressurising the 5th defendant to divert the said amounts and disburse it to each one of the trustees for their own

benefits.

(g) The first defendant trust and the 6th defendant college have been established, built and administered with the funds provided by the

Railwaymen. The accounts of the trust and the college would disclose the above fact. The entire trust and the college belong to the Railwaymen of

the Southern Railway who are represented by the plaintiff union.

The respondents/defendants 1 to 3 have filed a common counter affidavit in O.A.Nos:153 to 155 of 2004, the gist of the contentions are as

follows:-

(a) This court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The plaintiffs cannot institute this suit before this court since the subject matter of the trust is

not within the jurisdiction of this court. The Mazdoor Welfare Trust founded under a Trust Deed dated 4.11.19987, by the founder Mr. M.

Namasivayam is being properly managed. The fifth defendant in the suit who is the second defendant/sister''s husband is the main cause for this

litigation. The plaintiffs have filed the suit acting in collusion with the fifth defendant. The fifth defendant wanted to act on his own way. The second

defendant wanted him to act as per the terms of the Trust Deed and made it clear that he should act as per the resolutions of the Trust Board and

asked him certain queries, which he did not like. Hence he is using the plaintiffs as a lever to coerce the other defendants to come to his terms. The

plaintiffs are colluding with the 5th defendant because they want to hijack the trust and the college run by the trust. It is clear that the provisions of

Section 92 of CPC are being abused by the plaintiffs.

(b) Mr. M. Namasivayam, founder of the Trust got upset in his life because his only son died prematurely at a young age. Thereafter the plaintiffs 2

and 3 took advantage of the situation. Mr. Namasivayam was always with the plaintiffs 2 and 3. He has gone to Delhi by air and it is Mr. N.

Kanniah, the first plaintiff who has given send off to him and sent a person to accompany him. The third plaintiff has also assured the defendants

that he would be sending 5 or 6 persons to accompany Mr. Namasivayam for taking care of him. But he has not done so. Now it is stated that the

2nd defendant''s father is in Rishikesh. The defendants have every reason to believe that it is only the plaintiffs 2 and 3 who are responsible for her

father not coming to their place. Their mother will be taking appropriate action against the plaintiffs 2 and 3 to search their father whom they are

not able to trace. The present suit is only to hijack the trust and the trust properties. The plaintiffs are claiming right of ownership to the trust and its

properties which act is adverse to the interests of the trust. Section 92 of the CPC is not meant to entertain such a claim.

(C) On 22.6.1998 a resolution has been passed confirming that the Mazdoor Welfare Trust is an independent body and that the Southern Railway

Mazdoor Union has no control over the said trust. The said resolution was unanimously passed in the General Body Meeting of the Southern

Railway Mazdoor Union on 22.6.1998. On the basis of this resolution, filing of this suit is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Since the

demand made in the legal notice dated 1.9.2003 to induct three members of the first plaintiff union as members of the first defendant trust and two

of the defendants should resign from the trust or they should amend the trust deed which are contrary to the terms of the trust deed and detrimental

to the interest of the trust, the defendants declined to comply with the legal notice. The plaintiff union has no legal right to compel the first defendant

trust to amend the terms of the trust deed. Since some of the members of the plaintiff union have made contributions to the trust that does not mean

they are the owners of the trust.

(d) The objects of the trust are being fulfilled. The children of the Mazdoors working the railways are given seats in the college. Once the members

of the first plaintiff union contribute to the trust, it becomes trust money. After giving contribution, they cannot claim title to the trust property. The

averment that founder of the trust made it clear that the trust and the college belonged to the plaintiff union and its members is false. This runs

contra to the trust deed. The allegation that the funds for establishing the college and running the same has been completely provided by the plaintiff

Union and its members is not true.

(e) The allegation that the defendants have begun to siphon the funds of the trust and the college and amassed wealth by illegal means are all false.

The 5th defendant started acting on his own way, and when his activities were questioned, he has now set up the plaintiffs to file this suit. The

defendants are not guilty of any malfeasance or misfeasance. The allegations made against these defendants are vague and completely devoid of

particulars. The allegation that the second defendant demanded commission from the contracts for her personal purpose is false. The defendants

were advised to perform a pooja and they performed the pooja by spending Rs.27,500/= which was shared by the three sisters, which is referred

to in the letter dated 16.5.2003, addressed to the 5th defendant. The allegation that the second defendant demanded the 5th defendant to transfer

Rs.2.75 crores from the account of the trust is absolutely false. The first plaintiff union has no legal right to claim participation in the management.

The trust is functioning as per the deed of trust. The plaintiffs and the 5h defendant want to change the deed of trust itself which is not permissible.

The allegation that all the members of the plaintiff union have contributed monies to the trust is not true. The allegation that the defendants are

contemplating to transfer the funds to their accounts is also not true. The trust is going to take action against the 5th defendant calling upon him to

render accounts and for other reliefs. The trust funds have to be dispersed for telephone charges, internet charges, Salary for teaching and non

teaching staffs, drivers, attenders, office assistants, traveling allowances, electricity bills, maintenance of vehicles, office expenses of Engineering

college and the Chairman''s office at Chennai, provident fund, purchase of chemicals and equipments for lab, sundry creditors, bank loans,

advances and other incidental expenses are to be met out of the trust funds, as they have been paid all these years. The plaintiffs who have come to

court with unclean hands are abusing the process of law. The balance of convenience is in favour of the trust.

A separate counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent in O.A.Nos:153 to 155 of 2004, gist of the contentions are as follows:-

(a) The defendants father, founder-life trustee of the trust has had power to nominate the trustees as and when the other trustees'' period expires or

would retire or due to fall of vacancy for some other reasons. There is no provision in the trust deed to accommodate Vice Presidents of the

plaintiff union as alleged in the plaint. In fact the plaintiff Union in the Annual General Body Meeting held on 22.6.1998 passed a resolution stating

that the Mazdoor Welfare Trust should continue to be totally independent. In the above circumstances, the present suit is not at all maintainable.

Once the general body passed a unanimous resolution it is not now open the plaintiffs to say that the Vice Presidents or the Office Bearers of the

plaintiff Union are having right over the management of the suit trust. It is true that the members of the Mazdoor Union also have contributed largely

by way of donation. But the founder trustee obtained donations from various third parties and philanthropists for the establishment of the first

defendant trust. This court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit since the trust and the college are functioning at Thanjavur and Tiruvarur

Districts. It is learnt that there is an enquiry by CBI against the present General Secretary Mr. N. Kanniah and other office bearers who have

amassed huge wealth. During May 2003, the general Secretary of the first plaintiff union put unreasonable and uncharitable pressure on the first

defendant trust through so many persons to part with huge money every month or otherwise threatened that he would take the control of the

Engineering college run by the first defendant trust.

(b) Mr. Namasivayam, father of the defendants served in the Plaintiff union for over 45 years. The allegations made in the plaint are highly

defamatory to allege that the defendants are eking out their livelihood only through the Engineering college. The trustees are having the services of a

qualified Auditor and the accounts of the institution/trust are being duly audited and certified every year.

The 5th defendant has filed a counter affidavit in O.A.No.153 of 2004, gist of which is as follows:-

The leave granted by this court to file the suit is perfectly in order. This court has jurisdiction to deal with the suit trust. The allegation that the

plaintiff-union has no locus standi and the suit filed is only to coerce the defendants is not true. The 5th defendant is the son-in-law of the founder of

the trust Thiru Namasivayam. He was appointed as the Corespondent of the 6th defendant college. Mr. M. Namasivayam had reposed utmost

confidence on this defendant in the mater of administering the college and the trust. The attitude of the defendants 2 to 4 were totally not conducive

for smooth running of the institution as they had different ideas in the matter of applying the assets of the institution. The second respondent was

interfering with the administration of the college and trying to create a wedge between the 5th defendant and the staff. The respondents 2 to 4

wanted to diver the surplus funds of the trust to start a school at Chennai. It is absolutely wrong that this defendant had no control over the funds of

the trust. It is only he resisting the funds being utilized for any project other than what is stated in the objects of the trust. This defendant is

interested only in the smooth running of the trust and prays for a scheme to be framed in the interest of the trust to carry out the objects of the trust

and lofty ideas of the founder.

The second defendant has filed counter affidavits in O.A.Nos:83, 425, 29 and 206 of 2005 submitting similar contentions as that of her

counter to other applications.

The point for consideration is Whether the reliefs prayed for by the applicants/plaintiffs in the above Original Applications should be granted?

Mazdoor Welfare Trust has been formed by the founder-life trustee Mr. M. Namasivayam, the former General Secretary of the plaintiff-

Union, in whom most of the Railwaymen, particularly, members of the plaintiff-Union had implicit faith. As per his desire, the College, in the name

of his parents ""Anjalai Ammal-Mahalingam Engineering College"" at Koilvenni, Tiruvarur District was established with the funds contributed by the

employees of the Plaintiff-Union. In the Trust Deed itself it is mentioned that the founder of the trust had a keen and earnest desire to help and

serve the Mazdoors working in the Railways and people belonging to socially and educationally backward classes in general. The Board of

Trustees shall consist of not more than 5 members and initially Mr. M. Namasivayam, founder/life trustee and one M. Govindarajan and P.

Srinivasan were the trustees of the Mazdoor Welfare Trust.

In the booklet issued by the Trust on 8.11.1987, it was stated that ""the hands of the trust will embrace not only Railwaymen and his family, but

will touch the socially and economically backward also."" In the Booklet, the names of the donors who have donated in toto a sum of

Rs.4,05,585/- are printed. The list shows that every branch of the plaintiff Union has contributed more than Rs.4 lakhs as on 5.11.1987. By letter

dated 28.1.1989 Mr. M. Namasivayam, the founder/life trustee, the then General Secretary intimated the receipt of Rs.11,53,322/=, besides

Rs.37,120/=, received by the Ex-Divisional Secretary. With the said letter he has annexed the list of donors viz., various Railway Divisions of

Southern Railway. In the Central Working committee held at Chennai from 26.6.1989 to 29.6.1989, the decision to start the college was taken by

the plaintiff Union. In pages 36 to 41 of the typed set filed by the plaintiffs, the donations made by employees of various Divisions of the Southern

Railway is mentioned. In fact in para 5 of the letter dated 9.4.1994 addressed by the General Secretary to all the Branch Secretaries it is stated as

follows:-

The target for each branch is based on the total number of employees at the rate of Rs.100/= per head. It means, the contact with the workers

must be very close and every worker should feel proud, that for the first time in the Indian Railways history, a Trade Union is opening now (i)

Engineering college and()ii) Polytechnic. We are also planning to start ITI institutions, all the three simultaneously. This will be followed by a

number of technical institutions like (i) college of Pharmacy (ii)College of Nursing (iii) college of Physiotherapy (iv) Arts College, (v) college for

advance course in Computer Science, (vi) collage for post graduate Studies , all within another 3 to 4 years of time. The prescribed campus with

an area of more than 100 acres will be model for the whole country.

From page 50 of the typed set it could be seen that the Founder-Managing Trustee of the Trust had addressed a letter on 27.5.1994 to the

General Manager of the Southern Railway to allot 3 acres of land which belonged to Southern Railway for the purpose of establishing the said

Engineering College. For the above said letter which was forwarded to the Ministry of Railways, a reply letter dated 17.11.1995 has been sent

requiring certain details. On 6.12.1995, the Trust has responded to the said reply letter and given particulars regarding the trust-deed and financial

position. From the Calendar issued in the year 1996-97 by the said Engineering College, it is mentioned that ""This is the first time in history of our

country that workers have formed a trust and started a self financing Engineering College"". In the minutes of the Monthly Meeting of

CORs/Divisional Secretaries/Divisional Presidents and category council representatives held at the Engineering College, Koilvenni, itself on

19.7.1998, it was mentioned that the ""Principal also expressed his happiness and complimented the solidarity of the Railwaymen under SRMU and

the guidance of our general Secretary, in motivating the office bearers, in bringing up the massive Engineering college at Koilvenni."". In the letter

dated 24.11.1998 addressed by the Engineering College to AICTE, it is reiterated that the College is funded by lakhs of Railwaymen. The first

defendant trust has collected donation from the bonus paid to the plaintiff-Union members in a total sum of Rs.4,41,61,347/=. Apart from this, the

trust has taken loan from the plaintiff Union from 1996 to 2001 in a sum of Rs.1,74,14,505/=.

From the above documents/letters it is abundantly clear that it is only from the donations made by the employees of the plaintiff Union working

in various divisions of the Southern Railway and some philanthropists, the first defendant trust has been created which established the 6th defendant

college which has been reiterated by the founder-Managing Trustee himself in the various letters addressed to the branch secretaries and Southern

Railway. Several crores of rupees have been contributed by the Members of the Plaintiff Union who had implicit faith on Mr. Namasivayam, the

then General Secretary, whose whereabouts is not known for the last four years.

Though defendants 1 to 3 have denied contributions made by the railwaymen for establishment of the trust, overwhelming evidence is available

by way of records to prove that the first defendant-trust was formed by the contributions made by the railwaymen having affiliation to the plaintiff-

Union. In the letter dated 24.11.1998, Mr. Namasivayam, founder-life trustee of the trust and Anjalai Ammal-Mahalingam Engineering College has

mentioned that the College has spent Rs.15 Crores for the construction of massive building with updated infrastructure and the said college is

funded by lakhs of railwaymen.

The letter dated 16.5.2003, addressed by the second defendant reveals that she has made some allegations against the 5th defendant, the

erstwhile Correspondent, who is none other than her sister''s husband. But has also made a demand of 30% commission in contracts and supplies.

The second defendant has further demanded for 1/3 seats of management quota shall be given to the three sisters and also she must be paid

commission from the contractors on the materials purchased for the college. All these allegations have to be proved only by letting in evidence

during trial of the suit. However, prima facie case is made out that all is not well with the administration of the trust and the College by the members

of the family of Mr. N. Namasivayam, founder. In the place of the 5th defendant, the erstwhile Correspondent they have inducted their mother

(wife of Mr. M. Namasivayam) as one of the trustees. There is force in the contention of the learned senior counsel Mr. R. Krishnamurthy,

appearing for the applicants/plaintiffs that a public charitable trust which was formed for the sole object of benefiting the Railwaymen is being

converted as a family trust and the members of the said family, namely defendants 2 to 4 are amassing wealth by siphoning of the funds of the first

defendant trust.

Mr. T.V. Ramanujam, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants would contend that the prayer in the Original

Applications are similar to the prayer sought for in the main suit and therefore by passing orders in these applications, the suit itself would be

brought to an end without a trial. It is further contended by him that only at the time of admission funds are collected in the Engineering College and

in the remaining period no amount is collected or received from the students.

Per contra, Mr. R. Krishnamurthi, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants/plaintiffs contends that even after certain directions were

passed by this court not to draw any amount from the Banks, except for the day to day administration of the College, nearly 60 persons have been

appointed after filing of the suit at the whims and fancies of defendants 2 to 4 and two more busses have been purchased and funds are being

siphoned off by defendants.

Learned senior counsel appearing for the defendants 2 to 4 would contend that by a General Body Meeting Resolution dated 22.6.1998 it was

resolved that the Plaintiff Union will have no control over the Trust. At this stage, we do not know under what circumstances the said Resolution

was passed by the General Body of the Union and the same has to be decided only by examining the witnesses during trial. However, the fact

remains that even after such a resolution Mr. Namasivayam, founder-trustee and life trustee of the first defendant trust has sent a letter dated

17.2.2001 wherein he has mentioned that the plaintiff Union''s General Secretary Mr. N. Kanniah and Mr. C.A. Raja Sridhar, now President of

SRMU should be approached by the Correspondent-5th defendant, if there is any problem in the Trust and C.A.Raja Sridhar and Kanniah

(Plaintiffs 1 and 2) should extend all assistance to the college whenever there is a request from the Correspondent. Mr. M. Namasivayam has

further mentioned that if the problem cannot be solved, the administration of the trust and the 6th defendant college should be entrusted to

Ramakrishna Mutt. The said letter has been written by Mr. N. Namasivayam, founder-life trustee only due to some apprehension that trouble may

arise in the family who are the trustees of the first defendant trust and if they start mal-administration, then the property must be preserved and that

should have been the reason to write such a letter. Though the said resolution was said to have been passed on 22.6.1998 in the General Body

Meeting that the plaintiff-union will have no control over the trust, if that were the intention of the founder trustee, he need not write the abovesaid

letter dated 17.2.2001 directing the Correspondent to approach the plaintiffs 1 and 2 whenever there is necessity in the College for assistance. The

real purpose for which such a resolution was passed on 22.6.1998 of which advantage is now taken by the defendants 1 to 3 can be discussed

only after subjecting the same for cross examination. Therefore, the present contention that as per the resolution passed in the General Body

Meeting of the Plaintiff - Union, the plaintiffs cannot have any control over the first defendant trust cannot be appreciated at this stage, unless such

a resolution and the reason thereof are thrashed out during trial.

u/s 92 of the CPC any person having an interest in the trust can present a suit for the purpose of framing a Scheme. A Scheme can be framed

after a full-fledged trial. But for the time being, for the better administration of the trust and the college, this court is of the considered opinion that

two members of the plaintiff union i.e., General Secretary and President of the plaintiff Union viz., Mr. N. Kannian and Mr. C.A. Raja Sridhar shall

be co-opted as trustees along with three daughters of Mr. Namasivayam namely, N.V. Devi, N.V. Usha and N.V. Rani for the first defendant trust

and the management of the trust and its activities shall be carried out by Hon''ble Mr. Justice A. Ramamurthi, retired Judge of this Court until

further orders. Mr. Justice A. Ramamurthi is given a free hand to nominate a person of his choice to look into the day-to-day administration

subject to his approval and the trustees of the first defendant which shall consist of the three daughters of the founder-cum-life trustee Mr. M.

Namasivayam, namely defendants 2,4, and one Rani and Mr. N. Kanniah, General Secretary (SRMU) and Mr. C.A. Raja Sridhar, President

(SRMU). The above Board of Trustees shall assist and shall be under the control and supervision of Hon''ble Mr. Justice A. Ramamurthi. Mr.

Justice A. Ramamurthi shall be paid a sum of Rs.25,000/= per month as his emoluments apart from his expenditure for his travel and comfortable

stay at or near the place, where the trust and the 6th defendant college are functioning.

O.A.Nos:153 to 155 of 2005 and O.A.Nos:29, 83 and 425 of 2005 are disposed of accordingly. No costs.

As regards the prayer in O.A.No:206 of 1995 is concerned, learned counsel for the defendants 1 to 3 have submitted hat they have not

received any blank paper signed by the 4th defendant and submitted that no paper signed by the 4th defendant will be produced hereafter in court

as a document in these proceedings. Accordingly, O.A.No:206 of 2005 is closed. No costs.

As regards O.A.No:211 of 2005, no arguments have been advanced and the same shall be considered later.