JUDGMENT By the Court.—This First Appeal From Order under Section 104 (ffa) of the Code of Civil Procedure arises out of an order passed by the District Judge, Mathura dated 3.10.2012 in Misc. Case No. 21 of 2010 (L.D. Kaushik and others v. Devendra Kumar Modi and others) by which the application filed by the applicants-appellants for leave of the Court to file a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been rejected. 2. We have heard Shri Navin Sinha, Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Yashwant Verma for the appellants. Shri M.K. Gupta appears for respondent Nos. 1, 5, 6 and 10. Shri Rajiv Singh has entered appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 and 10. 3. The appellants filed a Suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure with prayers; (a) declare that the present Board of Trustee or Trust Committee comprising of the defendant Nos. 1 to 7 as null and void and remove them from the trusteeship of Rai Bahadur Multanimal Modi Charitable Trust, and to constitute a valid Trust Committee as per the mandate of the Trust deed for administration of the Trust and its properties; (b) direct defendant Nos. 1 to 7 to render accounts of the Trust including rendition of accounts relating to the realisation of the amount from the sale of the properties; (c) order for the inventory of the movable and immovable properties of the Trust; (d) pass a mandatory injunction directing to defendant Nos. 1 to 7 to hand over the trust properties to the Trustees or the Board of Trustees duly appointed by this Court; (e) settle the scheme for administration of the Trust in future; (f) permanently restrain defendant Nos. 1 to 7 from acting as the Board of Trustees or Trust Committee of the Rai Bahadur Multanimal Modi Charitable Trust or sell the properties of the trust or in any way use the funds of the trust for any purpose; and (g) such further and another order as the Court may deem just and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The applicants-appellants filed an application alongwith the suit for permission of the Court to file the suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure for declaration that the present Board of Trustees or Trust Committee comprising of opposite party Nos. 4. The applicants-appellants filed an application alongwith the suit for permission of the Court to file the suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure for declaration that the present Board of Trustees or Trust Committee comprising of opposite party Nos. 1 to 7 as null and void and to remove them from the trusteeship of the trust and to constitute a valid Trust Committee as per the mandate of the trust deed for administration of the trust and its properties and for direction to render accounts of the trusts including the realization of the amount from the sale of the properties and for preparation of inventory of the properties and other consequential reliefs. 5. The application for leave of the Court to file the suit described the applicants as permanent residents of Modi Nagar and well wishers of the Modi family, and the Trust created by late Rai Bahadur Multani Mal Modi. They described their interest in the property in paragraphs 5 to 9 as follows : “5. That the applicants want to institute the present suit against the opposite parties herein in the interest of the said Trust and in public interest as there has been a breach of Trust by the present Trustees and directions are required from this Hon’ble Court for administration of the said Trust, removal of the present Trustees and appointment of new Board of Trustees in accordance with the Trust Deed. 6. That the applicants are beneficiaries of the Rai Bahadur Multanimal Modi Charitable Trust i.e. the opposite party No. 10 (hereinafter referred to as the said Trust) and are persons having an interest in affairs of the said Trust, as the applicants from time to time have been undertaking pilgrimages to various religious places and have been staying in Dharmashalas constructed and maintained by various Charitable Trusts including the opposite party No. 10. The applicants are Hindus and religious minded persons and have been frequently visiting religious places for pilgrimage. Whenever the applicants used to visit Rishikesh, Vrindaban, Barsana etc. for pilgrimage, they used to stay in a Dharamshalas known as “Modi Bhawan”, established and managed by opposite party No. 10 Trust. 7. That the applicants whenever they used to visit Rishikesh for religious purposes on pilgrimage, they always stayed in a Dharamshala known as “Modi Bhawan”, established and managed by the said Trust. 8. for pilgrimage, they used to stay in a Dharamshalas known as “Modi Bhawan”, established and managed by opposite party No. 10 Trust. 7. That the applicants whenever they used to visit Rishikesh for religious purposes on pilgrimage, they always stayed in a Dharamshala known as “Modi Bhawan”, established and managed by the said Trust. 8. That however, when the applicants last visited Rishikesh on pilgrimage in the month of April of the year 2010, they found that the said Dharmashala of the Trust was alienated by the Trustees and at that place a commercial complex is constructed, which is now fully occupied and is functional. 9. That accordingly, the applicants being persons interested in the said Trust and also being persons who are beneficiaries of the said Trust initiated enquiries and procured a copy of the Trust Deed and some information. They found that present trust had been usurped by opposite parties Nos. 1 to 7 and illegally Board of Trustees is headed unauthorisedly by opposite party No. 1.” 6. The suit under Section 92 was filed with the allegations that the Trust Deed dated 12.7.1944, in Clause-4 provides that the maximum number of Trustees shall be 15 and the minimum 6. Clause-6 provides that out of the Trustees at least three Trustees shall always be from amongst the direct male lineal descendants of the founder, and failing such descendants from amongst the members of the family of the founder. Clause-20 provides that the founder of the Trust shall be the Chairman of the Board of Trustees and after founder’s death or on his resignation or removal Rai Bahadur Seth G.M. Modi, Vice Chairman shall be the Chairman for his life time or until he voluntarily resigns or is removed by the Board of Trustees. After Rai Bahadur Seth G.M. Modi being no longer Chairman, the senior member of the founder’s family shall be the Chairman provided he is not a minor. The applicants made enquiries and have learnt that Shri Devendra Kumar Modi-opposite party No. 1 acting as Chairman is not a senior member of the founder’s family or the Trust. He is the youngest son of late Shri Kedar Nath Modi, who has been the younger brother of late Rai Bahadur Gujjar Mal Modi. The applicants made enquiries and have learnt that Shri Devendra Kumar Modi-opposite party No. 1 acting as Chairman is not a senior member of the founder’s family or the Trust. He is the youngest son of late Shri Kedar Nath Modi, who has been the younger brother of late Rai Bahadur Gujjar Mal Modi. After Rai Bahadur Multanimal Modi, his eldest son Shri Gujjar Mal Modi became the Chairman and after him, Shri Kedar Nath Modi as senior most member became the Chairman of the Trust. After Shri Kedar Nath, senior male member should have been the Chairman but contrary to the terms of the Trust Deed, the junior most member Shri Devendra Kumar Modi has by his sheer muscle power usurped the Chair and professes himself to be the Chairman of the Trust. He alongwith the opposite party Nos. 2 to 7 are mismanaging the affairs of the Trust. Three valuable properties of the Trust have already been sold and their sale proceeds have not been spent for the purposes of the Trust. The Dharmsala known as Modi Bhawan at Rishikesh was sold for a petty amount and there is no account of the sale proceeds of the same either. The said property is now being used for a commercial purpose. The opposite parties are further taking steps to dispose of, alienate, transfer or sell the other Trust properties also. In paragraph-18 of the application the details of the 23 trust properties were given with further allegations that the Board of Trustees is illegally and unauthorisedly alienating or disposing of some of the public religious charitable trust properties without any authority and against the interest of the Trust. In paragraphs 20 and 21 of the application, it is alleged that in the year 2002 the Board of Trustees in collusion with one another sold the premises known as “Modi Bhawan-Barsana” on the ground that the Trust had no funds to maintain the building, which needed repairs. The property was sold at an under-valued price and the funds were siphoned of. The property was sold for Rs. 14,70,000/-, whereas actual market value of the same was Rs. 4000/- per square meters. The present valuation of the property is Rs. 10,000/- per square meter. The property was sold at an under-valued price and the funds were siphoned of. The property was sold for Rs. 14,70,000/-, whereas actual market value of the same was Rs. 4000/- per square meters. The present valuation of the property is Rs. 10,000/- per square meter. Similarly the Board of Trustee also sold in the year 2001 in collusion with each other the premises known as “Modi Bhawan, Risikesh” on the same ground that the Trust had no funds to maintain the building, which was in bad repair. The sale proceed was not deposited in the Trust accounts. The property was sold at an under valued price and the actual amount received was siphoned of. A shopping complex has come up in its place. The land was sold for Rs. 24,36,197.50 whereas the actual price was in crores of rupees. 7. The application was contested by the Board of Trustees. Shri Ved Prakash Gupta, the Secretary of the Trust arrayed as opposite No. 5, filed a reply stating that the application has not been filed by the members having any interest in the Trust. They have not disclosed their identity and the purpose, and have not come to the Court with clean hands. The Trust was set up for charitable purposes of which Shri Devendra Kumar Modi-the opposite party No. 1 is the Chairman of the Board of Trustees. Shri Ashok Kumar-opposite party No. 7 is not a Trustee in the Board of Trustee and that the names of Dr. B.S. Sharma and Shri Raj Kumar-the Board of Trustees have not been given nor they have made the parties to the suit. Shri Suresh Kumar Modi and Shri Krishna Kumar Modi-the opposite party Nos. 8 and 9 have no concern with the Trust nor were the members of the Board of Trustees. In fact, Shri Krishna Kumar Modi has himself filed a Suit No. 943 of 2006 in the name of the Trust representing himself as the Chairman of the Trust for a decree that he may be declared as the Chairman of the Trust and for a permanent injunction restraining Shri Devendra Kumar Modi to carry out any of the functions of the Trust. The Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ghaziabad has not passed any injunction order in the said suit. 8. The Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ghaziabad has not passed any injunction order in the said suit. 8. It is further alleged in the objections to the application for leave of the Court to file the suit, that Shri L.D. Kaushik-applicant No. 1 and Shri L.R. Sharma-applicant No. 2 are employees of Rajputana Fertiliser Limited, a public limited company of which Shri Krishna Kumar Modi is the Managing Director. The applicant No. 3 has been causing interference in the affairs of the Trust in the name of his wife Smt. Babita Sharma, and that applicant No. 4 is also an employee of Shri Krishna Kumar Modi, employed as a retainer. All these persons have clandestinely filed the application at the instance of, and for serving the interest of Shri Krishna Kumar Modi. The applicants have no interest nor are beneficiaries of the Trust. 9. In para-15 of the objections, it was stated by the Secretary of the Trust that Shri Ashok Kumar-opposite party No. 7 is not a Trustee since before the year 2006. After the death of Shri Rai Bahadur Gujjar Mal Modi, Shri Kedar Nath Modi was appointed as Chairman of the Trust with the approval of the Board of Trustees, and he continued to work until he resigned on 14.12.2004. His appointment and continuance as Chairman of the Trust was accepted by opposite party Nos. 8 and 9, who did not attend the meeting of the Trust after 14.9.1986, and did not take part in any of the activities of the Trust. They were thus removed from the Board of Trustees and for which a resolution was also passed. After 14.12.2004 Shri Devendra Kumar Modi-opposite party No. 1 was the senior most trustee. He was interested in the work and progress of the Trust and was thus appointed as Chairman of the Trust. 10. It was further alleged in the objections that after the death of Gujjarmal Modi, there were some disputes in the family regarding the properties, on which two groups were formed. One of the groups is of sons of late Gujjarmal Modi and the other of the sons of K.N. Modi, who was the brother of late Gujjarmal Modi. A Memorandum of Understanding was entered between two groups on 24.1.1989 under which the management of the Trust was given to the family of Dr. K.N. Modi and his sons. One of the groups is of sons of late Gujjarmal Modi and the other of the sons of K.N. Modi, who was the brother of late Gujjarmal Modi. A Memorandum of Understanding was entered between two groups on 24.1.1989 under which the management of the Trust was given to the family of Dr. K.N. Modi and his sons. This Memorandum of Understanding was signed by all the five sons of late Shri Gujjar Mal Modi. Since thereafter both the groups are managing the properties according to the Memorandum of Understanding independently. The settlement was also accepted by the Supreme Court. Since after 14.12.2004 Shri Devender Kumar Modi is the Chairman of the Trust. 11. So far as the sale of properties is concerned, it is stated in the objections, that Modi Bhawan at Barsana was sold after getting permission from the Additional District Judge, Mathura in the year 2002, and the Modi Bhawan at Rishikesh was sold with the permission of the District Judge, Dehradun in the year 2001 for the purpose and benefit of the Trust. The entire amount realized from the sale has been deposited in the accounts of the Trust, out of which Rs. 35 lacs was deposited by pay order dated 24.3.2005 to AICTE for sanction of an Engineering College of the Trust, in the name of KNGD Modi Engineering College, which is one of the objects of the Trust. 12. The District Judge has refused the leave of the Court to file the suit on the grounds that there is no evidence on record to show that the applicants have any interest in the Trust, or that they have filed the suit as representatives of general public. They have not produced any receipts of staying in the Dharmsala maintained by the Trust nor they have published any advertisement in the newspapers to file the Suit under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC. It is thus clear that they have filed the suit at the instance of opposite party Nos. 8 and 9 and for their benefit, which cannot be the object of the filing of the suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 13. It is thus clear that they have filed the suit at the instance of opposite party Nos. 8 and 9 and for their benefit, which cannot be the object of the filing of the suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 13. So far as the appointment of the Chairman is concerned, the District Judge has referred to an arrangement by a Memorandum of Understanding between the two groups in Modi family, which was accepted by Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.K. Modi and another v. K.N. Modi and others, 1998 (3) SCC 573 and under which the management of the Trust was given to K.N. Modi group. The District Judge has also referred to Suit No. 152 of 2007 (K.K. Modi and others v. Modi Charitable Trust) which has been transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge (Court No. 4) Ghaziabad, in which the Memorandum of Understanding dated 24.1.1989 has been acknowledged and it has also been accepted that the trust is being managed by the K.N. Modi group, which also shows that the members of K.K. Modi group, even if they were trustees, stopped attending the meeting of the Trust, could not have carried out the objects of the trust. 14. On the allegations that the senior most member of the Modi family can be the Chairman of the Trust, the District Judge has referred to the undisputed arrangement in the family in which Shri K.N. Modi was appointed as Chairman of the Trust, despite the fact, that he was not the senior most member of the family and was managing the Trust since 1976 after the death of Rai Bahadur Gujjarmal Modi. He was taking the interest in the activities of the Trust. No objection raised by any of the trustees on his appointment in 1976 and his continuance upto the year 2004 when he resigned on account of his failing health, and the appointment of Shri D.K. Modi the senior most trustee as the Chairman of the Trust. Shri K.N. Modi was not the senior most member, still he continues as Chairman of the Trust from 1976 to the year 2004 and thus the Trustees themselves did not accept the stipulation in the Trust Deed that the senior most member of the family will be appointed as Chairman of the Trust. 15. Shri K.N. Modi was not the senior most member, still he continues as Chairman of the Trust from 1976 to the year 2004 and thus the Trustees themselves did not accept the stipulation in the Trust Deed that the senior most member of the family will be appointed as Chairman of the Trust. 15. On the question of mismanagement of the Trust by sale of the properties at Barsana and at Rishikesh the District Judge observed that the orders passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 7, Mathura dated 7.11.2002 in Petition No. 4 of 2002 allowing the sale of the property of the Trust at Barsana and the order of the District Judge, Dehradun in Petition No. 95 of 2001 by which the permission was given on 1.11.2011 to the Trust to sell the property, was not challenged by any of the trustees or its beneficiaries. The averments in these petitions, that the Trust is the private trust would not be a ground to establish that the properties were mismanaged. 16. Shri Navin Sinha, Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the application under Section 92 or for that matter any other application filed in the proceeding is not pleading as defined and contemplated under the Code of Civil Procedure. It was thus not necessary for all the applicants to sign the application. The objects and purpose of the Trust clearly indicate that the Trust is a public and charitable character. The finding of the Court, that the Trust is of a private character, or designed for the benefit of any one family, has been recorded without considering the objects and purposes as laid down in the trust deed. The District Judge failed to consider that in the earlier litigation the applications were filed under Section 34 of the Indian Trust Act, which could be made only if the Trust is of private character. An application under Section 34 of the Indian Trust Act is not maintainable for a public charitable trust and that in any case the applicants were not parties to that application and will not be bound by any orders passed by the Courts permitting the sale of the properties of the Trust as the private trust. 17. Shri Navin Sinha submits that the trust properties were being mismanaged as the trustees were selling the properties and were not maintaining true and correct accounts. 17. Shri Navin Sinha submits that the trust properties were being mismanaged as the trustees were selling the properties and were not maintaining true and correct accounts. The trustee ought to strictly prove in the proceedings that the sale was for the benefit of the trust and that the entire sale proceed was utilized for the charitable purposes as set out in the trust deed. He further submits that non-impleadment of Shri B.S. Sharma could not be a ground to refuse to grant leave of the Court. The plaintiffs are public spirited persons and were interested in the activities of the trust. They have raised all the issues of mismanagement of the trust which require consideration by the Court. 18. Shri Sinha has relied upon Shiromoni Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee v. Mahant Harnam Singh C. (dead) M.N. Singh and others, (2003) 11 SCC 377 ; Swami Shankaranand (dead) by LRs v. Mahant Sri Sadguru Sarnanand and others, (2008) 14 SCC 642; the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Shanti Devi v. State and others, AIR 1982 Del 453 and a judgment of this Court in Lalta Prasad v. Brahmanand and others, AIR 1953 All 449, to support his submission, on the question of locus standi of the applicants. He submits that in Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee v. Mahant Harnam Singh (supra), it was held that where the suit is fundamentally on behalf of the entire body of persons, who are interested in the trust, it is for vindication of public rights. The beneficiaries of the trust, which may consists of the public at large, may choose two or more persons amongst themselves for the purpose of filing a suit under Section 92 of Code of Civil Procedure and such interested persons would be considered in the eyes of law represented by these persons as parties to the suit. The onus to prove that the institution is not a public charitable trust and has been established for the benefit of the family as a private charitable trust, would be on the trustees. In Swami Shankaranand (dead) by LRs (supra) the Supreme Court held that Section 92 of the code of Civil Procedure provides for special power to the District Judge in regard to the public trust both charitable and religious. In Swami Shankaranand (dead) by LRs (supra) the Supreme Court held that Section 92 of the code of Civil Procedure provides for special power to the District Judge in regard to the public trust both charitable and religious. In such case the judiciary exercises the jurisdiction of parens patriae and thus when an objection is filed for grant of sanction in terms of Section 92 (1) (f) of the Code the same should receive serious consideration. 19. The Delhi High Court in Shanti Devi v. State and others (supra) held that the Indian Trust Act, 1982 does not apply to public and charitable trusts. It only applies to private trusts. For the benefit of the public, an application can be made either by the Advocate General suing on behalf of the public or two or more persons having interest in the Trust with the leave of the Court. In Lalta Prasad v. Brahmanand (supra) this Court held that where the trust deed provided the senior and competent disciple to become the manager and mutwalli of the property made a waqf, provided that he follows the ‘Panth’ (Sect) and where the applicant had only a recital claiming that the applicant was nominated by Shri Shyam Lal (who had established the trust) acting as priest and making contributory collections he certainly would be a de facto trustee, who was carrying on the work and could maintain the suit. 20. Shri M.K. Gupta, appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 5, 6 and 10 submits that the suit under Section 92 accompanying with the application for leave of the Court to file the suit, was not filed in this case for the benefit of the Trust and for the protection and preservation of its properties. The suit and the application were filed at the instance of Shri Krishna Kumar Modi-opposite party No. 9, through his employees and representatives. The object of filing of the suit and the application was to take control of the Trust and to harass the members of the other branch of family. Shri Krishna Kumar Modi has himself filed the suit claiming to be the Chairman of the Trust for a declaration that he being senior most member of the family is entitled to function as the Chairman of the Trust, which is still pending and in which no interim order has been passed. Shri Krishna Kumar Modi has himself filed the suit claiming to be the Chairman of the Trust for a declaration that he being senior most member of the family is entitled to function as the Chairman of the Trust, which is still pending and in which no interim order has been passed. He thereafter set up the employees of the company of which he is the Managing Director; the wife of one of his employees, and a representative, who has been looking after his Court work to file and prosecute the cases. The appellants have no interest nor are the beneficiaries of the Trust. They could not establish by any evidence their concern and even a casual connection of staying in the Dharmshalas maintained by the Trust. They did not even have the knowledge of the persons, who are the Trustees and had not raised any objections to the sale of the Trust properties with the permissions of the Court and the investment of the sale proceeds in establishing an Engineering College. The application was filed with oblique purpose to obtain an advantage which had no connection with the object and purpose of the Trust. Shri Gupta has relied upon the findings recorded by the District Judge, Mathura rejecting the application and relies upon Swami Parmatmanand Saraswati and another v. Ram Ji Tripathi and another, (1974) 2 SCC 695 and Vidyodaya Trust v. Mohan Prasad R. and others, (2008) 4 SCC 115 , in which the Supreme Court has laid down the principles of grant of leave under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In Vidyodaya Trust (supra) the Supreme Court held that under Section 92, the question whether the suit is to vindicate the personal or individual right of a third person or to assert the right of the public, must be decided after taking into account the dominant purpose of the suit in the light of the allegations in the plaint. If, on the allegation on the plaint, it is clear that the purpose of the suit was to vindicate the individual right, there is no reason to hold that the suit was brought to uphold the right of the beneficiaries of the Trust, merely because the suit was filed by two or more members of public after obtaining the sanction of the Advocate General and claiming one or more reliefs specified in the section. There is no reason to think that whenever a suit is brought by two or more persons under Section 92, the suit is to vindicate the right of the public. It is the object or the purpose of the suit and not the reliefs that should decide whether it is one for vindicating the right of the public or the individual right of the plaintiffs or third person. 21. On a close and careful reading of the pleadings in the suit and the application, it is apparent to us and we agree with the findings recorded by the District Judge, Mathura that the permissions were given by the Additional District Judge, Mathura and District Judge, Dehradun to sell the properties treating the Trust to be the private trust. Even if for argument, it is accepted that the subject Trust is a public Trust, the applicants have not established that they have filed the suit for the benefit of the general public in the Trust and its properties. The applicants are neither the beneficiaries of the Trust nor they have established that they are entitled to and have taken such benefit at any time. It is not denied that the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 are the employees of Shri Krishna Kumar Modi-opposite party No. 9, and the applicant No. 4 is also in his employment. The applicant No. 3 has also been acting for the benefit of Shri Krishna Kumar Modi and against the other opposite parties. These facts were accepted by the counsel appearing for the plaintiffs before the District Judge during the course of arguments and thus the District Judge did not find it necessary to consider the documents, which would have proved that they are directly the employees of Shri S.K. Modi and Shri K.K. Modi-opposite party Nos. 8 and 9. Shri G.D. Kaushik-the father of plaintiff No. 1 had tried to take possession of the land of Modi Spinning for which a First Information Report was lodged against him and that the suit was filed by Modi Spinning and Weaving Mill Limited against Shri G.D. Kaushik in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Suit No. 402 of 2002, which was decreed. 22. 22. We do not find any error in the findings recorded by the District Judge that there is no evidence on record to show that the plaintiffs have any interest in the Trust or that they have not filed the suit as representatives of general public. They did not provide any evidence of staying in the Dharmshalas of the Trust nor carried out any publication in the newspapers in accordance with the procedure provided under Order 1 Rule 8 of Code of Civil Procedure. It was established beyond any doubt that the suit was filed at the instance of opposite party Nos. 8 and 9 for their individual benefit in a dispute for taking over the control of the assets of the Trust. 23. We also agree with the findings of the District Judge, that under the Memorandum of Understanding dated 24.1.1989 between two groups in Modi family, which was accepted by the Supreme Court the management of Modi Charitable Trust was entrusted to K.N. Modi group. Shri Krishna Kumar Modi and his younger brother S.K. Modi of the other group have filed Suit No. 152 of 2007 in the Court of District Judge, Ghaziabad, which is still pending and in which in the plaint he had accepted that after the death of Rai Bahadur Gujjarmal Modi in the year 1976, Shri K.N. Modi was appointed as the Chairman of the Trust and continued as its Chairman upto the year 2004, when he had resigned and after his resignation Shri Devendra Kumar Modi has been looking after the management of the Trust. During all the periods and even after 2004 no complaint was made by Shri K.K. Modi or by any of the trustees, beneficiaries or even member of the general public regarding mismanagement of the Trust or that the Trustees have acted against the object of the Trust. Shri K.K. Modi and his brother Shri S.K. Modi, opposite party Nos. 9 and 8 have withdrawn from the activities of the Trust and have stopped taking part in the meeting of the Board of Trustees on which they were removed from the trusteeship by resolution of the Board of Trustee dated 17.7.1993. For reasons best known to them they want to take over the control of the Trust and its properties and for which they started litigation by themselves and thereafter by proxy through their employees and the representatives. 24. For reasons best known to them they want to take over the control of the Trust and its properties and for which they started litigation by themselves and thereafter by proxy through their employees and the representatives. 24. In the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the District Judge, that the application for leave of the Court and the purpose of filing of the suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the applicants-appellants, is for vindication of the personal claims of Shri Krishna Kumar Modi and Shri Satish Kumar Modi opposite party Nos. 9 and 8. The District Judge did not commit any error in rejecting the application for leave of the Court for filing the suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 25. The First Appeal From Order is dismissed. ——————