JUDGMENT (Appeal against the Judgment and Decree passed by this Court dated 09.02.2011 in C.S.No.438 of 2000 and O.A.No.751 of 2006 and Application Nos.4058 & 5038 of 2005, 2458, 2459, 3956, 4010 & 4011 of 2006 and 2511 of 2007.) P. Devadass, J. The plaintiffs in C.S.No.438 of 2000 have directed this Original Side Appeal as against the judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge passed in the said suit, whereunder a scheme has been framed to administer the affairs of the first defendant, namely, 'Rao Bahadur Allathore Nathamoony Chetty Charitable Trust', shortly, 'R.B.A.N.C. Trust.' 2. Rao Bahadur Allathore Nathamoony Chetty, an Ariya Vysia was a businessman, philanthropist, in and by his last Will dated 23.07.1949, among various bequeathes, created the said Trust, which envisages running of Ramanuja Koodams, situate at a place in Triplicane and also in Nanguneri in Tirunelveli District. Further, the testator had also provided for running of an Elementary School and closure of it after his demise. However, to cater to the educational needs of many, the said school is being continued, now as an higher secondary school. 3. In his Will, the testator had named, 4 executors and also directed them to act as Trustees. There is a codicil dated 12.03.1950. But, there was no major departure from the provisions of the Will dated 23.7.1949. 4. The testator died issueless on 31.7.1953. On 17.2.1954, in O.P.No.17 of 1954, the above said Will of testator was probated by this Court. After the death of the testator, many years have passed, there were many improvement in the trust and its educational institutions. In course of time, there were changes in the trustees. 5. The first plaintiff, an ex-student of the Trust school and second plaintiff, the Treasurer of the school welfare committee have filed the suit in C.S.No.438 of 2000 alleging many acts of misdeeds as against the 3rd defendant/3rd respondent, who is the secretary of the Trust, prayed for framing a scheme for the management of the Trust. 6. Though, in the plaint, certain allegations have been made as against the 3rd defendant, the plaintiffs have not pursued them. They mainly concerned with who should be appointed as trustees. The plaintiffs have contended that the trusteeship need not be restricted to a particular community, namely, Ariya Vysia. 6. Though, in the plaint, certain allegations have been made as against the 3rd defendant, the plaintiffs have not pursued them. They mainly concerned with who should be appointed as trustees. The plaintiffs have contended that the trusteeship need not be restricted to a particular community, namely, Ariya Vysia. However, the contesting defendant would oppose it relying on the provisions concerning filling up of vacancy of trusteeship mentioned in the Will. 7. On 9.2.2011, the learned Single Judge framed the scheme to conduct the affairs of the Trust and ruled that persons belonging to Ariya Vysia community of Chennai alone could be appointed as trustees. 8. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs have directed this appeal. 9. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, a reading of the provision in the Will relating to the filling up of the vacancy of the trustees would clearly show that of course the first preference shall be given to A.V.Namberumal Chetty and if he declines, the vacancy must be filled up by any other person. He may be a non-Ariya Vysia. This is also evident from the fact that the first four trustees nominated by the testator himself included non-Ariyavysias also. If the testator's intention was only to appoint Ariya Vysias as trustees, in his will he would not have nominated certain non-Ariya Vysias as executors and trustees. The learned Senior counsel further contended that inasmuch as the Trust is a public Trust and it has an Educational Agency, the trusteeship should not be restricted to members of any particular community. In this respect, the learned Senior Counsel cited S.SUBRAMANIAM VS. DR.S.RAMADOSS AND 12 OTHERS [2002(2) L.W.733]. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents would submit that in the matter of executing the Will, translating the intention of the testator must be the guiding factor. A reading of the words employed in the Will dated 23.7.1949 would clearly show that any vacancy in the office of the Trusteeship should be filled up by members of Ariya Vysia community, residing in Chennai and while doing so, first preference must be given to A.V.Namberumal Chetty. The decision cited by the learned Senior Counsel is not applicable to the facts of this case. 11. The decision cited by the learned Senior Counsel is not applicable to the facts of this case. 11. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel and the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents, perused the Will, the impugned judgment and the decision cited at the bar. 12. We have already stated about the creation of the Trust by the Will of the testator and the Trust was named after him and the various charities he had intended and are being implemented. 13. An Higher Secondary School and a Nursery School are being run by the said Trust. As regards appointment of trustees, provision has been made in the Will by the testator. In such circumstances, the true intention of the testator has to be ascertained. To find it out, the court has to put itself in the heart and mind of the testator. It is also popularly said that to find out the real intention of the testator, the Court has to sit in the arm chair of the testator. In this regard, the Court must also refer to the words employed in the testamentary disposition. 14. In his Will dated 23.7.1949, the testator has named four persons, namely, 1)Suriya Narayana Iyer, a Brahmin Advocate, 2)Kanniya Chetty, brother of the testator, 3) Nagaraja Rao and 4)Rangasamy Iyer as executors as well as trustees. The above names include non-Ariya Vysias also. As they are susceptible to the eventualities of human flash, the testator had to indicate as to how to fill up the vacancies in the office of the trusteeship. Thus, in the Will, the testator states that "if any vacancy occurs among the trustees, the remaining trustees may select and appoint another Aryavysia a resident Madras. First preference should be given to Sri A.V.Namberumal Chetty and if for any reasons he declines to accept, then only another person should be selected." 15. The said provision in the Will regulates the filling up of the vacancies in the office of the trusteeship. This provision has been interpreted differently by both sides. The appellant would say that it envisages appointment of non-Ariyavysias also, however, first preference must go to A.V.Namberumal Chetty. On the other hand, the contesting respondent would say that all the trustees must be Ariyavysias of Chennai, but, among them first preference must go to A.V.Namberumal Chetty. 16. This provision has been interpreted differently by both sides. The appellant would say that it envisages appointment of non-Ariyavysias also, however, first preference must go to A.V.Namberumal Chetty. On the other hand, the contesting respondent would say that all the trustees must be Ariyavysias of Chennai, but, among them first preference must go to A.V.Namberumal Chetty. 16. The words employed in the said part of the Will of the testator is plain, simple, unambiguous, easy to understand and it does not admit any difficulty in understanding it. The meaning of the words employed in the Will and the context are also indicative of the true intention and mind of the testator. 17. Of course, the first trustees named in the Will includes non- Ariyavysias also. One thing is clear that the trustee must be a resident of Chennai. The testator is an Ariyavysia. It is clearly from the phraseology used in the Will, the vacancy in the office of the trusteeship has to be filled up by an Ariyavysa, who is residing in Chennai. While selecting such persons, first preference must go to A.V.Namberumal Chetty. If he declines, then it must go to another person. The other person must be among the Ariyavysias, residing in Chennai. 18. In S.SUBRAMANIAM VS. DR.S.RAMADOSS AND 12 OTHERS [2002(2) L.W.733], P.T.Lee. Chengalvaroya Naicker Trust provided for appointment of a person from the family of the founder Trust and four persons from the Vanniya Community as trustees out of the 9 Trustees. When it was contended that the Trust is for the welfare of the Vanniya Community, majority of the trustees should be from that Community. It was rejected by the Court, because, it is not a provision in the Trust Deed. Thus, this decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 19. Thus, the provision in the Will as regards filling up of the vacancies in the office of the trusteeship would clearly show that the intention of the testator, who himself is an Ariyavysia, is to fill up the vacancies from the members of his own community, residing in Chennai. 20. Thus, the learned Single Judge has correctly construed the provision in the Will regarding the filling up of the vacancies in the office of the trusteeship. 21. In the result, this Original Side Appeal fails and it is dismissed. 20. Thus, the learned Single Judge has correctly construed the provision in the Will regarding the filling up of the vacancies in the office of the trusteeship. 21. In the result, this Original Side Appeal fails and it is dismissed. The decree and judgment of the learned Single Judge are confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.