1. Following the rulling in Vaithilingam v. S.M.R.M. Ramalingam Pillai(1), I think the petitioners should be directed to be made party defendants. They allege that they are trustees and there is nothing prima facie to show that they are not. There rights as trustees would be lost by the framing of the scheme: see Rama Das v. Hanumantha Row(2), and that being so, I think they should be heard before the Court takes any action to their prejudice. No doubt the Subordinate Judge says that their application is not bona fide.
2. It is not clear what this means or on what it is based. The defendants support the claim of the petitioners to the trusteeship. I cannot take this observation as meaning that the petitioners are putting forward a totally unfounded claim to trusteeship. If that is what is meant, it is unsupported by any evidence. I must therefore set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge and direct him to add petitioners as party defendants and proceed with the trial of the suit in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs in this petition.
S.N/R.K
3. Order set aside.