JUDGMENT 1. The Revision Petitioner is the third party and filed the Revision after getting the leave of this Court challenging the order passed in Tr. O.P. No. 2 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Madurai. 2. The Respondents 1 to 3 filed Tr. O.P. No. 2 of 2009 seeking permission of this Court to sell the properties mentioned in the Petition, which admittedly belonged to the First Respondent-Trust and permission was granted by the Court below to sell the properties to the Respondents 4 to 9 herein and the same is challenged in this Revision. 3. Mr. R. Devaraj, the learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the Suit Trust is a Public Trust and therefore, the Petition filed under Section 34 of the Trust Act for the sale of the properties was not maintainable and the Court below ought not to have entertained the Application, when admittedly the Trust is a Public Trust. 4. The learned Counsel further submitted that even assuming that the Trust is a Private Trust, having regard to the nature of the properties, namely the Trust properties, the Court below should not have allowed to sell the property by private negotiations without conducting Public Auction and therefore, on that ground the order of the Court below directing the sale is liable to set aside. 5. The learned Counsel further submitted that sale was ordered in Tr. O.P. No. 2 of 2009 on 4.8.2010 and till date, the purchasers, who entered into an Agreement with the Trustees for the sale of the properties have not paid the consideration and as per the order, the sale consideration ought to have been deposited within two months and though, more than two years was over, the sale consideration was not paid and the sale consideration offered by the Respondent 4 to 9 was also very low compared to the market value and therefore, the sale ordered by the Court below in favour of the Respondents 4 to 9 is liable to be set aside. 6. Mr. 6. Mr. K.K. Senthil, the learned Counsel appearing for the another party, who also got leave of this Court to get himself impleaded in this Revision submitted that no Public Notice was issued calling for Public Auction to sell the properties belonging to the Trust and a Public Notice was issued seeking objection, if any for the sale of the property and thereafter, the trustees entered into a private transactions with the Respondents 4 to 9 and the properties are allowed to be sold in favour of the Respondents 4 to 9 and therefore, in the absence of any Public Auction in respect of the sale of Religious and Charitable properties, the sale is liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, Mr. M.V. Venkateseshan, the learned Counsel for the purchasers submitted that necessary Applications were filed before the Court below seeking for extension of time to pay the sale consideration and the purchasers have also agreed to pay the interest from the date of the order of this Court till date and therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the Trust by selling the properties in favour of the purchasers and the Court below after taking into consideration of the guideline value and after being satisfied that the price quoted by the purchasers, represented the correct market value and granted permission to sell the property in favour of the purchasers and therefore, the present Revision filed by the Revision Petitioner cannot be entertained. He further submitted that the Trust is a Private Trust and therefore, the procedure contemplated for selling Public Trust properties cannot be applied to the sale of Private Trust properties. 8. It is admitted that under a Settlement Dated, dated 10.4.1930, the suit properties were settled for some Religious and Charitable purposes. The Settlement Deed was executed by one Arumugathammal and as per the recitals in the Settlement Deed, she has directed performance of conducting abishekam and do Maheswara Pooja and to take Milk Pot and perform Abishekam for Arumuga Nayanar on the Vaikasi Visakam day and perform Maheswara pooja and the remaining amount after meeting the expenses aforesaid, be saved and a ‘mut’ shall be established at Tiruparankundam and thereafter, the remaining amount can be taken by the Trustees. In O.S. No. 129 of 1965 filed by the Trust, represented by its trustees. In O.S. No. 129 of 1965 filed by the Trust, represented by its trustees. The Sub-Court, Madurai held that the Trust cannot be construed to be a Public Religious Trust to which the provisions of HR & CE Act can be extended. 9. Further, having regard to the objects of the Trust, it cannot be stated that the Trust is a Public Trust on the ground that the Trustees are directed to perform ‘Maheswara Pooja’, which means ‘Food distribution’ and considering the overall recitals in the Trust Deed, namely taking of Palgudam and Abishegam on Vaigasi Vishagam and also do Maheswara Pooja and considering the finding given in O.S. No. 129 of 1965, dated 31.8.1967 marked as Ex. B2, I hold that it is a Private Trust and Trust Act will apply. Though, the properties are Private Trust properties, the trustees cannot sell the properties by entering into a Private negotiations and the Court below should not also encourage private negotiations and the Court below ought not to have directed the sale of all the properties through private negotiation. 10. It is admitted that the trustees entered into a Private agreement of sale for the sale of the Trust properties and the Private negotiations were approved by the Court below and the Trustees were permitted to sell all those properties to the Respondents 4 to 9. The Agreements of Sale entered into between the Trustees and the prospective purchasers were filed in the typed set of papers, the Petitioners herein. 11. It is seen from the Agreements of Sale that the purchasers, namely the Respondents 4 to 9 herein entered into an Agreement of Sale only with the Trustees in their individual capacity and not as trustees of the Trust and it is seen from the recitals in the Agreement of Sale that the property is described as property belonging to the trustees and the trustees agreed to get permission from the Court to sell the property and after getting permission, the sale can be executed. Therefore, the question that arises for consideration is whether the Trust properties can be sold in private sale. 12. Therefore, the question that arises for consideration is whether the Trust properties can be sold in private sale. 12. According to me, whether it is Private Trust or Public Trust, once the property has been described as Trust property and permission was sought for from the Court below to sell the said property, the Court must be very vigilant in safeguarding the Trust properties and ought not to have allowed the sale of the Trust properties by Private negotiation. 13. In this case, though the Public Notice was issued calling for objection from the public, the Public Notice was issued only for the purpose of calling for objection for sale of the property and in that notice, it was not mentioned that the properties are to be sold to particular prospective purchasers, namely the Respondents 4 to 9 herein for the agreed price and if objection is raised, they can approach the Court. The publication was only calling for objection for the sale of the Trust property and therefore, the publication made by the Trust cannot justify the sale of the property. 14. In the judgment reported in Chenchu Rami Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 1986 (3) SCC 391 , it was held that the property of Institutions or Endowments must be jealously protected and the Authorities exercising the powers under the Act must not only be most alert and vigilant in such matters, but also show awareness of the ways of the present day world as also the ugly realities of the world of today. They cannot offer to take things at their face value or make a less than the closest-and best-attention approach to guard against all pitfalls. They must be aware that in such matters the trustees or persons authorized to sell by Private negotiations, can, in a given case, enter into a secret or invisible underhand deal or understanding with the purchasers at the cost of the concerned institution. 15. The Hon'ble Judges also raised questions that those, who are willing to purchase by Private negotiations can also bid at the Public Auction and why would they feel shy or be deterred from bidding at Public Auction? Why then permit sale by Private negotiations which will not be visible to the public eye and may even give rise to public suspicion unless there are special reasons to justify doing so? 16. Why then permit sale by Private negotiations which will not be visible to the public eye and may even give rise to public suspicion unless there are special reasons to justify doing so? 16. In the judgment reported in R. Venugopala Naidu v. Venkatarayulu Naidu Charitable, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 356, the principles laid down in Chenchu Rami Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 1986 (3) SCC 391 , was reiterated. Therefore, from the above Hon'ble Supreme Court judgments, the Trust properties are to be jealously guarded and it cannon be allowed to be sold by Private negotiations and it must be sold only by Public Auction. 17. As stated supra, no Public Notice was given seeking public to quote their price for the properties and Public Notice was given only for calling for objection for the sale of the properties, without mentioning the Private negotiations entered into between the Trustees, namely the Respondents 1 to 3 herein with the Respondents 4 to 9. Therefore, even assuming that the Respondents 4 to 9 agreed to pay the market price for the properties, having regard to the conduct of the Trustees in entering into a Private negotiation, the Court below ought not to have granted permission to the Respondents 1 to 3 to sell the properties of the Trust to the Respondents 4 to 9 without conducting Public Auction. 18. One another reason for setting aside the order is that even after two years, the Respondents 4 to 9 have not paid the sale consideration and it is a common knowledge that the properties of land are increasing by leaps and bounds by every day and therefore, the Respondents 4 to 9 cannot be permitted to purchase the properties, after three years by paying interest on the sale consideration agreed earlier. Therefore, according to me, the sale can be done only by Public Auction, and therefore, the order of sale by the Court below through Private negotiations is bad in law and it is liable to set aside and it is hereby set aside. 19. In the result, the Revision Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.