M. K. RAPPAI & Ors. v. JOHN & Ors.

(c) If the declaration were allowed to stand it would operate as res judicata and it would not be open to the defendants to question it in the subsequent proceeding~ filed for the same relief after complianc~ with the section. [128 B-C] (d) A bare declaration of the right without consequential relief will be within the mischief of s. 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 or s. 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. [128 D-E] CiviL APPELLATE JuRISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. ~ 787 of

#1966. Appeal from the judgment a.:~d decree dated May 18, 1964 of the Kerala High Court in Appeal Suit No. 591 of 1963. B c D E G H ... A 8 c D E F G M. K. RAPPAI V. JOHN (Ray,].) 125 D. Narsaraju and A. S. Nambiar, for the appellants. W. S. Barlingay, R. Mahalingier and Ganpat Rai, for re5pon dents Nos. 1 and 2. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ray, J. This is an appeal from the judgment dated ~ 8 May, 1964 of the High Court of Kerala allowing the appeal in part and allowing declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are next in the line of succession to V. L. Lazar and T. V. John respec tively and that they are entitled to claim an appointment as trus tees. The High Court, however, concluded by saying that such appointment could be made in a properly framed suit under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Counsel for the appellants contended that the High Court was in error in making the declaration particularly when the High Court said that such appointment could be made only in a pro perly framed suit under section 92 of the Code. In order to appreciate ihe matters in controversy it is neces sary to refer to a few facts and the frame of the suit. The plaintiffs filed this suit in 1961 for a declaration that de fendants numbered 4 to 9 were "trespassers" on the trust and that all acts and proceedings of defendants numbered 1 to 9 done since the resignation of T. V. John and V. L. Lazar in respect of the administration of the trust are invalid and void; that the plaintiffs be appointed as t~ustees; that defendants numbered 10 to 11 be declared to be, aqd to have always been, lawful trustees and for injunction restraining defendants numbered 4 to 9 from interfering with the trust; that an enquiry be made into their ad ministration and accounts, recovery of properties and funds mis used, wast.~d, disbursed or appropriated, and that defendant num bered 1 to 3 be declared to be unfit to continue as trustees. There was a deed of settlement dated 20 December, 1953 executed by a Christian T. V. Kochuvareed called "Thattil Kochu vareed Educational and Charitable Trust". Apan from the set tlor, V. L. Lazar father of the first plaintiff and T. V. John father of the second plaintiff and defendants numbered 1 to 3, 10 and II were trustees. O.n 2 7 May, 1957 V. L. Lazar resign ed from the trusteeship. On \2 March, 1960 T. V. John follow ed suit. The settlor and the rest of the trustees appointed six more trustees being defendants numbered 4 to 9 inclusive. The settlor Kochuvarced died on 26 July, 1961. H On 28 November, 196 t respondents numbered t and 2 name ly, John son of V. L. Lazar and V~rghese son of T. V. John the 126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1970J 2 S.C.R. plaintiffs filed suit O.S. No. 115 of 1961 claiming, that the plaintiffs be appointed as trustees. inter alia, A At the trial two preliminary issues were framed : Whether the suit was maintainable due to want of compliance with section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and wh~ther the Court had jurisdiction to try this suit relating to trust. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the suit was within the mischief of non-com pliance with the provisions of section 92 of the Code of Civil Pro ·cedure. The trial Court on 12 March, 1962 dismissed the suit and held that the suit had to be instituted after obtaining sanction under section 92 of the Code. The plaintiffs filed an appeal. On appeal the High Court on 20 August, 1962 allowed the appeal in part and set aside the dismissal of the suit in so far as it related to prayer 'e · and reinanded the suit to the trial Court for trial in respect of that claim. The trial Court on remand by judgment dated 23 August, 1963 held that the suit as framed was maintainable and the plain tiffs were entitled to be declared as rightful trustees but the second plaintiff would have to exercise rights as trustee onl:-t' on attaining majority. Prayer 'e' in the plaint was as follows : - 'That plaintiffs be appointed to their rightful place as trustees and the second plaintiff being a minor now, be permitted to exercise his rights and safeguard his in terests until he attains majority, 'Next Fri-~nd, namely his father". through his The appellants. vi;:.., defendants numbered 4 to 9 preferred an appeal. The High Court on 18 May, 1964 allowed the appeal in part and altered the declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs were next in the line of succession and that they were entitled to claim appointment as trustees, but such appointment could be only in a properly framed sui_t, ~-·"'"'' ·· .. -- Counsel for the appellants contended that prayer 'e' was with It in the mischief of section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. was further said that the plaintiffs (respondents 1 and 2) filed a fresh suit O.S. No. 1 of 1965 in the District Court, Trichur under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying, inter alia, for reliefs of removal of defendants numbered 4 to 9 and appointment of the plaintiff~. as trustees in plac.e of their respective fathers who resigned from such office and for other reliefs. Counsel for the appellants contended that the finding in the present appeal that the plaintiffs were entitled to a declaration for appointment would constitute res judicata unless the same finding was set aside and B c D E F G H M. K. RAPPA! V., JOHN (Ray,. J.) 127 .A the matter was kept entirely open in the new suit filed by respon dents 1 and 2. Counsel for the respondents contended that the decision of the High Court could be upheld because all that it said was that the plaintiffs were entitled t_o a right_ and the question of appoint ment would be canvassed m the suit. This contention is unac ceptable because a suit for a bare declaration of right without further relief for possession and other reliefs as the facts and cir cumstances would require is not supportable. The provisions of section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure indicate, inter alia, that a suit for appointment of new trustees is competent only after compliance with the provisions of section 92 of the Code. The plaintiffs, namely, respondents 1 and 2 in the present case, alleged that defendants numbered 4 to 9 were strangers and "trespassers'' in relation to the trust, and that the other defendants illegally introduced defendants numbered 4 to 9 into the Board of Trustees. The plaintiffs further alleged that defendants numbered 1 to 9 were guilty of waste and misappro priation. The plaintiffs further alleged that they had exclusi\'c right to be appointed trustees. Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure prohibits a plaintiff from obtaining relief of appoint ment of new trustees without the compliance with the provision of the said section of the Code. The only question is whether prayer ·e' in the plaint can be said to be one for appointment of new trustees. The plaintiffs asked for appointment. It was said by counsel for the respondents that the plaintiffs under the deed of trust could be appointed trustees. Reliance was placed on clause ( 6) of the deed of trust which, inter alia, stated that in the case of a vacancy, the remaining trustees were to appoint a new trustee. It, therefore, follows that even under clause ( 6) of the deed of trust it would be an appointment of new trustees. The trustees in the present case did not appoint new trustees. The plaintiffs, therefore. came to court. The reason why the plal.n tiffs sought the aiJ of th! Court is the appointment of trustees. It is only because the other trustees did not appoint a new trustl!e that the plaintiffs took recourse to the institu~ion of the suit for the appointment of trustees . Further, uokss the defendants are \ye removeJ there cannot be an appointment of new trustees. are, therefore, of opion that prayer 'e' in th~ p_resent case,_ ~·1:., the plaintiffs be appointed ns trustees falls w1thm the prov1s1ons of section 92 of the Coul.!. !f as we helJ that the appointment of new truste~ f~lls \\:ithin sec~1on 92 of the Code can it yet be said that the plamtl!fs Will be entitled to a bare declaration of their right to be appomtcd.. In the first place, it will be granting them the right to be nppomtcd B c D ' E F G II 128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1970] 2 S.C.R. which itself is the foundation of appointment. If the appointmen~ falls within the vice of section 92 any decision giving them the right to be appointed will be pre-judging the question and will be an impediment as far as the defendants are concerned in ques tioning the right of the ?laintiffs to be appointed as trustees. Se· condly, it is well settled that if any matter is directly prohibited, the same cannot be achieved indirectly. The appointment of new trustees is prohibited in the absence of the compliance with the provisions of section 92 of the Code. If a right is granted to the plaintiffs to be appointed as trustees it will amount to an indirect way of giving the plaintiffs the relief of the right to be appointed. It will be particularly so because the right will be res.inclusa and will, therefore, be res judicata. The right will not be open to be questioned in subsequent proceedings. Thirdly, if the appoint ment of new trustees cannot be proceeded with in the absence of compliance with the provi-sions of section 92 of the Code and when a suit has been instituted by the plaintiffs for the self-same reliefs after complaince with section 92 of the Code it is all the more necessary that the entire question of appointment which pre supposes as its foundation the right to be appointed should be gone into' the newly instituted suit in 1965 to which reference is made earlier. Fourthly, a bare declaration of right will be within the mischief of section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 and section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. We are, therefore, of opinion that the judgment of the High Court giving the plaintiffs the right to be appointed trustees should It is made clear that contentions of the rival parties be set aside. in the newly instituted suit are left open. The finding of the ~~igh Court and the declaration granted by the High Court are both set aside. Tht suit is, therefore, dismissed. A B c D E For these reasons, the appeal is accepted and is allowed. The F appellants will be entitled to costs. V.P.S. Appeal allowed.