JUDGMENT 1. Both the appeals arise out of the judgment and decree dated 26.2.2007 passed in O.S. No.156/2002 by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Bellary. One Sree Sree Sree Sadguru Mahadevathathanavaru a saint popularly known as Alipur Tatha had large followers and devotees all over Karnataka. The devotees had donated large extent of movable and immovable properties to the saint. The saint left the mortal body on 30.12.1987. One Nalawada Basappa and Sowdri Shanmukhappa trustees of Sree Sree Sree Sadguru Mahadevanthathanavar Gnana Rambhapuri Math filed O. S. No.1/1991 under Section 92 of CPC for framing a scheme. One J. S. Basavaraj and Channanagoud trustees of Sree Sree Sree Mahadevanthathanavar Vidya Samsthe were the defendants in the suit. The Plaintiffs and the defendants entered into compromise under Order 23 Rule 3 giving the detail procedure for management of the trust and also proposed the names of the trustees to manage the properties of the trust situated in different parts of Karnataka. The District & Sessions Judge decreed the suit in terms of the compromise. 2. The appellants in RFA No.1010/2007 filed suit in O.S. No.156/2002 for declaration that the compromise decree in O.S. No.1/1991 is a fraudulent decree and be declared as void and also sought relief of appointment of a committee for the management of the trust. The appellants in RFA 1468/2007 are the defendants in the suit. 3. The defendants contended that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to declare the decree under Section 92 CPC of the District Judge void. This Court in C.R.P. No.1075/2004 has found that the civil court has jurisdiction to declare the decree granted U/s 92 as void if it is obtained by fraud. The trail Court after trail has partially decreed the suit declaring that the compromise decree obtained in OS No.1/1991 is void. The relief for appointment of trustees for management of the trust properties is rejected. Hence the plaintiffs are in appeal regarding rejection of relief of appointment of a committee of trustees. The defendants are in appeal aggrieved by the order of declaring the compromise decree as void. 4. The suit in O.S. No.156/2002 is totally unnecessary and unwarranted. The decree granted in the scheme suit in O.S. No.1/1991 is not an immutable decree. Hence the plaintiffs are in appeal regarding rejection of relief of appointment of a committee of trustees. The defendants are in appeal aggrieved by the order of declaring the compromise decree as void. 4. The suit in O.S. No.156/2002 is totally unnecessary and unwarranted. The decree granted in the scheme suit in O.S. No.1/1991 is not an immutable decree. Any person interested in the trust have right to approach the Court in O.S. No.1/1991 to seek necessary modification of the scheme and for removal of the trustees, if there is mismanagement of the trust properties. Assuming for the moment that there is fraud played in obtaining the compromise decree in O.S. No.1/1991, the plaintiffs in O.S.No.156/2002 have right to make an application to the District Court in O.S. No.1/1991 bringing to the notice of the court, the acts of fraud played by the parties in obtaining compromise decree and get the scheme modified and also could seek removal trustees. In that view of the matter the judgment of the trail Court in declaring the decree in O.S. No.1/1991 as void is bad in law. However the plaintiffs in O.S. No.156/2002 are given liberty to approach the District Court and make proper application to seek needed reliefs. The plaintiffs in O.S. No.156/2002 have made serious allegations of mismanagement and malversation of funds of the trust. Therefore in the interests of trust properties we deem it just and proper to direct the parties to maintain status quo for a period of 3 months. In the meantime the plaintiffs can approach the District Court, Bellary to work out proper remedies in accordance with law. Accordingly the appeals are disposed of in the terms indicated above.