JUDGMENT This appeal, preferred under section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against judgment and decree dated 20.05.1995, passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Haridwar, in original suit no. 15 of 1991, whereby, said Court has decreed suit removing the defendants/appellants from trusteeship and directed that scheme of administration of the trust be prepared by the trustees appointed by said Court. 2. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that a suit was instituted by plaintiffs (present respondent no. 1 to 7), under section 92 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908, (for short C.P.C.) stating that the property in suit was initially owned by one Nigahinath, and on his death succeeded by his mother Shanti Devi through Will dated 02.09.1966. It is further pleaded that Shanti Devi executed a Will dated 12.06.1967 and created a trust known as Swami Nigahinath Ashram Trust (situated in Sapt Sarowar Road, Haridwar), also known as Rishikunj Nepali Ashram. In said Will dated 12.06.1967, she also expressed that Mehant Baldass (defendant no. 7), shall be the Managing Trustee while Anand Prakash Sharma (defendant no. 8), Damodar Sharma, Kunti Devi and Sita Devi, shall be the other trustees. As per the plaint case Shanti Devi died on 24.11.1976, and her entire above property stood vested in the trust. On 14.07.1987 a meeting was called by Managing Trustee Baldass and plaintinf 1 to 4 (Sami Swaroopanand, Suvira Devi, Parmavati and Dayawati defendant no. 1 to 3) (Ishwari Devi, Parmavati Devi, and Krishna Prasad Adhikari) were appointed as new trustees as some of the trustees resigned from the post of trusteeship. Anand Prakash Sharma (defendant no. 8), Kamla Ben (defendant no. 9) and Jayanti Lal Chawda (defendant no. 10) submitted their resignations. On 22.03.1988 Meera Chetan (defendant no. 4) Krishna Malhotra (plaintiff no. 5), Yogi Ram Bhole baba (plaintiff no. 6), Krishna Prasad Sapkota (defendant no. 7), Krishna Prasad Adhikari (defendant no. 8) and Pritam Singh Chatwal (defendant no. 10) were also appointed as new trustees. It is alleged by the plaintiffs that (defendant no. 1) Ishwari Devi (defendant no. 2) Parvati Devi (Both appellants before this Court), in collusion with defendant no. 3 Krishna Prasad Adhikari, attempted to change the nature of the trust property. They got the property entered in the name of defendant no. 1 Ishwari Devi, in the revenue record. It is alleged by the plaintiffs that (defendant no. 1) Ishwari Devi (defendant no. 2) Parvati Devi (Both appellants before this Court), in collusion with defendant no. 3 Krishna Prasad Adhikari, attempted to change the nature of the trust property. They got the property entered in the name of defendant no. 1 Ishwari Devi, in the revenue record. As such the other trustees decided to remove them from the trusteeship, and an application was moved before Tehsildar to remove name of the Ishwari Devi from revenue record and to enter “Nigahinath Ashram Trust” as the person owner of the property. On said application vide order-dated 21.08.1988 necessary mutation was made by the authority in favour of the Nigahinath Ashram Trust. It is further alleged in the plaint that defendant no. 4 Meera Chetan, after she developed cataract in her eyes, was unable to look after the property and she too resigned from the trusteeship. It is pleaded that Sardar Pritam Singh (defendant no. 5) did not take interest in the trust property as he started living in Mumbai. Another trustee Tripti Devi has also died. In the circumstances, it is prayed by the plaintiffs that to save the trust property, defendant no. 1 to 3 be removed from the trusteeship, and a direction be issued to the trustees to prepare a scheme of administration, of the trust. 4. The defendant no. 1 & 2 (present appellants) contested the suit and filed their written statement before trial Court. It is admitted by the contesting defendants that Nigahinath was the original owner of the property, and after his death Shanti Devi succeeded the property. It is also admitted that Shanti Devi vide her Will dated 12.06.1967 created Nigahinath Ahsram Turst. It is pleaded by the defendant no.1 & 2 that defendant no. 1 was disciple of Shanti Devi. She lived with Shanti Devi in the property in dispute and her name was entered as an heir of Shanti Devi after her death. However, it is not disputed that Baldass was appointed Managing Trustee by Shanti Devi and she looked after the property with the other trustees, it is also not disputed that in the meeting held on 14.07.1987 defendant no. 1 to 3 were made new trustees but it is added that defendant no. 1 was made Vice Chairman of the trust. It is denied by answering defendants that plaintiff no. 1 to 3 were made new trustees but it is added that defendant no. 1 was made Vice Chairman of the trust. It is denied by answering defendants that plaintiff no. 1, 3 or 4 were made trustees and the trust property. Alleging that plaintiff no. 2 is a clever lady it is stated that she moved an application to get the name of defendant no. 1 Ishwari Devi scored of from the revenue record, and the name of defendant no. 1 was scored of and in its place name of Baldass, Managing Trustee, was recorded. As to the meeting held on 22.03.1988, as alleged by the plaintiffs, it is pleaded that no such meeting was held. It is categorically denied that the answering defendants ever tried to sell the property or to take any personal benefit from the property in question. It is further pleaded that for thirty five-forty years the answering defendants doing worshiping and managing the trust property and as such their rights as trustees cannot be interfere with. 5. The trial Court, on the basis of the pleaded and the parties framed following issues. (1) Whether the property in suit is a trust property? (2) Whether the defendants have committed breach of trust as alleged in para 9 to 14? (3) Whether Swami Baldass is the owner and Managing Trustee of the property? (4) Whether scheme of administration is required to be framed by the Court? (5) Whether defendant no. 1 to 3 should continue as trustees? (6) To what relief if any the plaintiffs are entitled? 6. After recording evidence of the parties and hearing them the trial Court held that the property in question is a trust property of Nigahinath Ashram. It further held that Mehant Baldass was Managing Trustee but during the pendency of suit on 12.06.1993 he has died. The trial court further held that the defendant no. 1 to 3 are liable to be removed from the trusteeship, and scheme of administration is required to be famed. With these findings the trial Court decreed the suit removing the defendant no. 1 to 3 from the trusteeship, and by appointing seven new persons as trustees and directed that scheme of administration be prepared. It further directed that defendant no. With these findings the trial Court decreed the suit removing the defendant no. 1 to 3 from the trusteeship, and by appointing seven new persons as trustees and directed that scheme of administration be prepared. It further directed that defendant no. 1 to 3 should handover the possession of property and accounts of the property to Swaroopanand (One of the seven trustees appointed by the Court). Hence this appeal was filed by the defendant no. 1 & 2 before Allahabad High Court on 13th of June 1995, from where it is received by transfer under section 35 of U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000 (Central Act No. 29 of 2000), for its disposal. 7. Before further discussion it is pertinent to mention here that learned Counsel for the parties admitted that Swami Swaroopanand to whom the trial Court directed to transfer the possession of the property and accounts of the property, has also died during the pendency on this appeal. 8. Points of determination raised in this appeal before this Court, for its decision are as under. (i) Whether, the defendant no. 1 to 3 were liable to be removed from trusteeship, on the ground alleged in the plaint? (ii) Whether, for the management of the trust property, is it necessary to direct the new trustees appointed by the Court to prepare scheme for administration. 9. Admittedly the property in question is a trust property created as per the Will – dated 12.06.1967 executed by Shanti Devi. The trial Court has unnecessarily framed Issue No. 1 as it is admitted in the written statement itself that the property in question was originally owned by Nigahinath and after his death as per his will succeeded by his mother Shanti Devi, and she vide her will dated 12.06.1967 desired that the trust be created in the name of Nigahinath, and after her death. Even this is not in dispute between the parties, that Baldass (since deceased) was the first Managing Trustee of the trust property. The plaintiffs themselves have admitted that defendant no. 1 to 3 were added as trustees along with the plaintiffs in the year 1987. The dispute between the parties is whether defendant no. 1 Ishwari Devi, in collusion that defendant no. 2 and defendant no. 3 attempted to change the nature of property, for her own benefit or not. The plaintiffs themselves have admitted that defendant no. 1 to 3 were added as trustees along with the plaintiffs in the year 1987. The dispute between the parties is whether defendant no. 1 Ishwari Devi, in collusion that defendant no. 2 and defendant no. 3 attempted to change the nature of property, for her own benefit or not. The ground on which her integrity as to trusteeship is doubted is that she got recorded her name in the revenue record in place of Shanti Devi, after her death, and only after an application moved the plaintiffs, name of Ishwari Devi was deleted from the revenue record, and name of Managing Trustee Swaroopanand was entered. 10. As far as recording of name of Ishwari Devi by the revenue authorities and there after scoring of her name and in her place entry to Swaroopanand as Managing Trustee is concerned it is argued before this Court on behalf of the defendants/appellants that there is no role of the defendant no. 1 to 3 in recording name of Ishwari Devi in place of Shanti Devi after her death. In this connection attention of this Court is drawn to para A82A of chapter AV of U.P. Land Records manual which provides that a Lakhpal (revenue official) in the Course of “PARTAL’ (inspection/inquiry) if finds that a tenure holder has died, he shall ascertain the death and fill the entry in form P-A-11-A. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that since defendant no. 1 Ishwari Devi was living in the Ashram, and looking after the affairs of the Ashram as such her name was entered by the revenue official, on his own motion and thee was no role of her in getting that entry made with intention to change the nature of the property. In this connection it is further submitted that after the authorities scored of her name, and name of Swaroopanand as Managing Trustee was entered vide mutation order dated 08.10.1991, the appellants did not challenge said order before any authority. 11. Having gone through the entire record this Court finds force in the submission of learned Counsel for the appellants that since Ishwari Devi (defendant/appellant no. 11. Having gone through the entire record this Court finds force in the submission of learned Counsel for the appellants that since Ishwari Devi (defendant/appellant no. 1) was living in the Ashram after death of Shanti Devi, and looking after its affairs, merely for the reason that entry of her name was made by the revenue official under P-A-11-A it can not be said that she made any attempt to make the property of her own. As to her trusteeship it is admitted to the plaintiffs that she was made a trustee in the year 1987. After her name was scored of and in her place name of Swaroopanand (the then Managing Trustee) was entered, said change was not challenged by any one of the parties. As much said fact further makes clear that the defendant no. 1 Ishwari Devi, defendant no. 2 Parvati Devi or defendant no. 3 Krishna Prasad Adhikari committed no misconduct in managing the trust property of the Ashram. That being so, the trial Court has erred in law in holding that the three committed misconduct, as such their removal directed by the trial Court is erroneous in law. Point of determination No. (i) stands answered and findings recorded by the trial Court, contrary to it, are hereby reversed. 12. As to the question of requirement of preparing scheme of administration of the trust, since admittedly, during the period of trial of the suit most of the then trustees appointed before the filing of the suit have already died, as such the direction issued by the trial Court nominating seven new trustees with further direction to prepare the scheme of administration of the trust property suffers from no illegality to the extent that trustees nominated (by Court) along with the surviving trustees of the Ashram can manage the affairs of the trust, and prepared the scheme. The point of determination no. (ii) accordingly stands decided and the finding of trial Court accordingly stand affirmed to the above extent on this point. 13. For the reasons as discussed above, this appeal is partly allowed. The impugned Judgment and decree dated 20.05.1995 passed by the trial Court (2nd Additional District Judge, Haridwar) in suit no. 15 of 1991 is set aside to the extent suit is decreed for removal defendant no. 1 to 3 from trusteeship. The three shall remain trustees as before. 13. For the reasons as discussed above, this appeal is partly allowed. The impugned Judgment and decree dated 20.05.1995 passed by the trial Court (2nd Additional District Judge, Haridwar) in suit no. 15 of 1991 is set aside to the extent suit is decreed for removal defendant no. 1 to 3 from trusteeship. The three shall remain trustees as before. However, nomination of seven trustees by the trial court for preparing the scheme of administration, is upheld and it is clarified that the surviving trustees of these nominated trustees along with the existing surviving trustees shall elect/choose one amongst them as Managing Trustee (as Swami Swaroopanand is said to have died), and they shall manage the affairs of the trust property. It is clarified that the defendants/appellants need not handover the physical possession of the trust property and they may continue to look after the affairs of the trust property along with the other trustees. No order as to costs.