JUDGMENT : B. KEMAL PASHA, J. 1. These matters have arisen from the common judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Court-II, Kollam in O.P. No. 433 of 2011 and O.S. No. 1/2013. O.S. 1/13 was originally filed before the Munsiff's Court, Attingal as O.S. No. 242/2011. As per the orders of the Division Bench of this Court, O.S. No. 242/2011 of the Munsiff's Court, Attingal was also ordered to be jointly tried along with O.P. No. 433/2011. 2. Both these matters relate to a Trust named "Navabharath Vijnhan Trust" registered as per the provisions of the Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The Trust is hereinafter referred to as the Society. 3. O.P. No. 433/2011 is filed by one of the founder trustees named C. Kolammal as the first petitioner, and other three persons, who are claiming to be members of the Society, as petitioners 2 to 4. The fact as to whether petitioners 2 to 4 are members of the society is in dispute. The first respondent is the Society represented by the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent M. Basheer as well as the 3rd respondent are admittedly founder trustees (members) of the Society, along with the first petitioner. The 3rd respondent Sulaika Beevi, is the wife of the 2nd respondent. The 4th respondent and additional respondents 5 to 7 are also claiming to be the members of the Society; whereas, the said fact is strongly disputed. 4. The Society is running an English Medium Higher Secondary School in the name and style as "Navabharath Higher Secondary School." The Society was initially formed by eight persons namely (1) Nujumuddin (2) M. Basheer, the 2nd respondent, (3) S. Sainulabdeen, (4) P. Ponnayyan Achari (5) S. Subaidabeevi (6) R. Sulaikha Beevi (7) M. Laila Beevi and (8) Kolammal. Immediately after the formation of the Society, Nujumuddin got appointed as a member of the Kerala State Public Service Commission. On the said appointment, he resigned from the membership of the Society. His wife S. Subaidabeevi along with the 3rd respondent named S. Sainulabdeen and his wife Laila Beevi also resigned from the membership of the Society by leaving M. Basheer, the 2nd respondent, P. Ponnayyan Achari, Sulaikha Beevi and Kolammal as the four members of the Society. On the said appointment, he resigned from the membership of the Society. His wife S. Subaidabeevi along with the 3rd respondent named S. Sainulabdeen and his wife Laila Beevi also resigned from the membership of the Society by leaving M. Basheer, the 2nd respondent, P. Ponnayyan Achari, Sulaikha Beevi and Kolammal as the four members of the Society. According to the petitioners, on the resignation of the aforesaid four members, the remaining members inducted four more persons as members namely N. Kuttappan Nair, Dr. S. Gopalakrishnan, the 4th petitioner, Nazihuddin, the 2nd petitioner and Lubina, who is his wife, the 3rd petitioner. The alleged induction of the 2nd petitioner 3rd petitioner and the 4th petitioner is strongly disputed by the respondents. 5. Ext.X2 contains the bylaws of the Society in total. There are 30 clauses in the said bylaws. As per clause 14, three members present in person shall be a quorum for the meeting of the Board of Trustees. As per clause 15, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees shall preside as the Chairman at every meeting of the Trust and he should manage the institutions of the trust. As per clause 18, the Board of Trustees shall consists of not less than four members. Clause 29 says that the death or retirement of a Board of Trustee shall not operate to dissolve the Trust, but the Trust may be continued with the remaining Trustees or by the legal representative of the deceased trustee. As per clause 25, the Secretary will be responsible for the executive affairs of the Trust under the control of the Board of Trustees. He will be responsible to record the minutes of the meetings, to file the necessary returns, etc. 6. Later Ponnayyan died and further Kuttappan Nair also died. According to the petitioners, no Board meetings were held after 15.04.1993; whereas, all the matters were stage managed by the 2nd respondent alone, at his whims and fancies. According to the petitioners, the additional 5th respondent was illegally inducted by the 2nd respondent as one of the members of the Trust. It is the further case of the petitioners that the 2nd respondent has illegally inducted his two sons, who are additional respondents 6 and 7, also as members of the Trust, in order to stage manage all the affairs of the Trust by himself. It is the further case of the petitioners that the 2nd respondent has illegally inducted his two sons, who are additional respondents 6 and 7, also as members of the Trust, in order to stage manage all the affairs of the Trust by himself. According to the petitioners, on the death of Kuttappan Nair, the 2nd respondent has illegally inducted Gopakumar (4th respondent), who is the son of late Kuttappan Nair, also, without the knowledge and consent of other Board members. It is alleged that the 4th respondent was immediately elevated to the position of Chairman, that too illegally. According to the petitioners, there are no sufficient provisions in the bylaws of the Society, in order to have a proper administration of the Society, and further that the 2nd respondent has been doing whatever he wants in the Society, and has been administering the School also, according to his whims and fancies, by appropriating all his income from the School by himself. It is in this context O.P. No. 433/2011 was filed for the removal respondents 2 and 4 from the category of office bearers of the Society and to appoint other members from the membership of the Society as per the majority decision, to frame a sufficient scheme for the better and efficient management of the first respondent Society, for rendition of accounts of the Society, and such other reliefs. According to the petitioners, they have sought for the said reliefs under Section 25 of the Act. 7. The 4th respondent as the 2nd plaintiff and the 2nd respondent as the 3rd plaintiff representing the Society filed O.S. No. 242/2011 as a simple suit for injunction for restraining the 2nd petitioner in the OP, who is the defendant in the said suit, and his men from entering in the plaint schedule property and from causing obstructions of any nature to the running of the School by the plaintiffs. 8. The 2nd respondent, on his own behalf and for and on behalf of respondents 1, 3 and 4 in the O.P. filed a detailed objection by way of counter by contending that the OP is not maintainable for mis-joinder of parties and on many other grounds. According to the 2nd respondent, petitioners 2 to 4 are utter strangers to the Trust and they have no locus standi to represent the Trust. According to the 2nd respondent, petitioners 2 to 4 are utter strangers to the Trust and they have no locus standi to represent the Trust. It is contended that they were not admitted as members. According to the 2nd respondent, the 4th respondent was duly admitted in the Trust vide the decision of the Board of Trustees on 27.01.2001 and thereafter he was elected as the Chairman. It is admitted in the objections that all the founder members had contributed equally for the purchase of the landed properties, the construction of building etc. It is contended that the 2nd petitioner and the 4th petitioner were members of the School Advisory Committee and the said Committee was authorized to conduct bus services for the School for some time. It is also contended that the 2nd petitioner and the 4th petitioner forged and fabricated documents in order to make it appear that they were members of the Board of Trustees. According to the 2nd respondent, after fabricating and forging false documents they could manage to get those documents inserted in the files of the District Registrar's Office, Kollam and to obtain copies from there, under the Right to Information Act. Further, according to the 2nd respondent, the 2nd petitioner could produce false and fabricating documents at the Federal Bank, Vengod Branch, with the assistance and connivance of his relatives, who were working at the Bank as Assistant Manager and clerk. Huge amounts had to be spent for the construction of the building for the School, and the Society was running in short of funds. Therefore, according to the 2nd respondent, his son Sabeer, who is the additional 6th respondent, had to spend huge amounts, and in return, he along with another son of the 2nd respondent namely Mohammed were also admitted as trustees. The 2nd respondent has sought for the dismissal of the original petition with compensatory costs. 9. O.S. No. 1/2013 was also strongly resisted by the defendant, who is the 2nd petitioner in the original petition. According to him, he along with his wife were lawfully inducted as members of the Society, and the 2nd defendant was elected as the Treasurer of the Board of Trustees. 9. O.S. No. 1/2013 was also strongly resisted by the defendant, who is the 2nd petitioner in the original petition. According to him, he along with his wife were lawfully inducted as members of the Society, and the 2nd defendant was elected as the Treasurer of the Board of Trustees. According to him, the 2nd respondent in the original petition, with the active assistance and connivance of the 4th respondent, has manipulated, forged and fabricated records in order to make it appear that the 2nd petitioner as well as the 3rd petitioner were not inducted as members of the Society. 10. It seems that the court below has raised some issues in the original petition as well as in the suit. On the side of the petitioners, PWs. 1 to 6 were examined. On the side of respondents RW1 to RW5 were examined and Exts.B1 to B26 were marked. 11. The court below, through the impugned judgment, held that the plaintiff in O.S. No. 1/2013 is not entitled to the relief of injunction and further, found that the petitioners in O.P. No. 433/2011 are not entitled to the reliefs sought for apart from the relief of modification of the existing rules of the Trust. Consequently, the court below dismissed O.S. No. 1/2013 and allowed O.P. No. 433/2011 in part. 12. The parties are referred as appellants and respondents by treating R.F.A. No. 53/2016 as the main matter in the manner in which the parties are arrayed in the said appeal. Heard learned counsel for the appellants in R.F.A. No. 53/2016 Sri. G.S. Raghunath and learned Senior Counsel for the respondents Sri. R.D. Shenoy. 13. Both sides have fairly conceded that the impugned judgment reflects a cryptic order, which could not have been expected in a serious matter like this. At the same time, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, the entire evidence in the matter is available before this Court and, therefore, this Court can take an independent decision in the matter based on evidence. 14. Per contra, by relying on Order XLI Rule 23 and 23A, the learned Senior Counsel has argued that judicial propriety and fairness demand a remand of the matter for a fresh consideration by the court below, after raising proper issues in the matter. 14. Per contra, by relying on Order XLI Rule 23 and 23A, the learned Senior Counsel has argued that judicial propriety and fairness demand a remand of the matter for a fresh consideration by the court below, after raising proper issues in the matter. The learned Senior Counsel has also conceded that the court below has not gone into the merits of the case and to discuss the evidence tendered by the parties. According to the learned Senior Counsel, in case this Court is taking an independent view in the matter by relying on the evidence in hand, it will be as good as bypassing a proper authority, which ought to have discussed and decided the matter, which may ultimately result in prejudice to the parties. 15. This Court has taken aback to see the manner in which the court below has handled the case. Apart from mentioning that some witnesses were examined in the matter, it seems that the court below has not gone into the evidence tendered by the parties. No discussion is there in the judgment and the findings entered by the court below are not supported by proper observations. 16. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel, no issue regarding the membership or induction of the 4th respondent and additional respondents 5 to 7 has not been raised by the court below even though the parties were fighting tooth and nail regarding the said aspect. Nothing has been discussed in the judgment with regard to the said matter. Matters being so, this Court is of the view that the entire matter requires fresh consideration by the court below, after raising proper issues involved in the matter. 17. The learned Senior Counsel has pointed out that the petitioners are not entitled to seek most of the reliefs sought for in the O.P. under Section 25 of the Act. As per Section 25 of the Act, the orders which the court can pass under the said provision are:- "(a) removing the existing governing body and appointing a fresh governing body; (b) framing a scheme for the better and efficient management of the society; (c) dissolving the society." 18. As per Section 25 of the Act, the orders which the court can pass under the said provision are:- "(a) removing the existing governing body and appointing a fresh governing body; (b) framing a scheme for the better and efficient management of the society; (c) dissolving the society." 18. Here, in the present O.P. the relief (i) sought for is the removal of respondents 2 and 4 from the category of office bearers of the society and to replace them from among the members of the society as per the majority's decision. Such a relief is not one contemplated under Section 25 of the Act. Of course, during arguments, learned counsel for the appellants has pointed out that this Court can remove the governing body of the society as such, in order to make arrangement for replacing them. As pointed out earlier, this Court is of the view that such an exercise is not expected from this Court at this stage by moulding the relief. Of course, the petitioners will get an opportunity before the court below to amend the petition properly and to seek appropriate reliefs within the meaning of Section 25 of the Act. Regarding relief no. (ii), the said relief is one contemplated under Clause (b) of Section 25(1) of the Act and, therefore, such a relief can be granted based on evidence. The relief comes under Clause (c) of Section 25 (1) has not been sought for by anybody. 19. On going through the bye-laws of the society, it seems that there is a necessity for a comprehensive bye-laws for the proper administration and management of the society. Clause No. 29 of the bye-laws says that the death or retirement of a member shall not operate to dissolve the Trust, but the Trust may be continued with the remaining trustees or by the legal representatives of the deceased trustees. Proper procedure has to be specified regarding the consequence of the death or retirement of a member of the Board of trustees. Strangely enough, there is no provision enabling the retirement of a trustee as per the bye- laws. If it is intended by the terms "retirement" as "resignation" then, of course, the outgoing member shall not have any right to propose a new member. Strangely enough, there is no provision enabling the retirement of a trustee as per the bye- laws. If it is intended by the terms "retirement" as "resignation" then, of course, the outgoing member shall not have any right to propose a new member. At the same time, in the case of death of a member, there should be proper procedure for inducting one of the legal representatives of the deceased trustee. In the absence of specific procedure with regard to all these and the entitlement of such a person to come as a member, it may invite serious consequences in the absence of any such specific provision. 20. Similar is the case with some other clauses also. Say, for example, Clause No. 14 mentioned earlier shows that three members present in person shall be the quorum for the meeting of the board of trustees. In this particular case, it seems that the 2nd respondent claims that additional respondents 6 and 7 were inducted by the Board of Trustees as members of the society. Additional respondents 6 and 7 are none other than the two sons of the 2nd respondent. In such case, the 2nd respondent along with his two sons can take any decisions with regard to the running of the society or matters affecting the objectives of the society. The strange manner in which the 2nd respondent has inducted his two sons as members of the society has also to be taken note of. Such a decision should not have been taken by him or by the persons acting for him, by which the society has been transformed into a family property. The same has to be undone. The eligibility of other members inducted are also to be examined on the basis of evidence. 21. The 2nd respondent as DW1 in the affidavit in lieu of chief examination admitted that equal contributions were there from all the founder members for the purchase of properties as well as for putting up buildings in the properties. In such case, at any stretch of imagination, one of such founder members cannot be permitted to induct his sons in the society as members for enabling him to take what all decisions he could take according to his choice. Proper provisions relating to all these matters are required in the bye-laws. In such case, at any stretch of imagination, one of such founder members cannot be permitted to induct his sons in the society as members for enabling him to take what all decisions he could take according to his choice. Proper provisions relating to all these matters are required in the bye-laws. Matters being so, ultimately, the finding entered by the court below that a fresh scheme has to be framed, is not liable to be interfered with. The parties shall suggest as to what all terms to be incorporated in the fresh scheme to be formulated. 22. On a perusal of the affidavit filed by DW1 in lieu of chief examination itself, it is evident that the society is not running in accordance with the bye-laws. Regarding the explanation offered with regard to the membership of the 2nd petitioner also, this Court is of the view that the said explanation offered by DW1 is not believable. Of course, this Court is not making any comments on the further evidence of DW1 when the matter has to be examined by the court below in order to arrive at a correct decision. 23. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that as per Section 107(2) CPC, the appellate court shall have the same powers and shall perform as nearly as may be the same duties as are conferred and imposed by the Code on courts of original jurisdiction in respect of suits instituted therein. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, when the running of the school is also being in the hands of the 2nd respondent, who has been committing all sorts of illegalities in order to snatch away the school as well as the property as his own family property, a Receiver ought to have been appointed by the court below. It seems that I.A. No. 1796/2011 was filed by the petitioners under Order XL Rule 1 CPC seeking the appointment of Receiver for the administration of the Trust and its properties till the formulation of a proper scheme and the election of a proper Board of Trustees. 24. On going through the evidence, in this particular case, it is high time to appoint a Receiver since this Court is satisfied that it is just and convenient in the interest of justice to do so. 24. On going through the evidence, in this particular case, it is high time to appoint a Receiver since this Court is satisfied that it is just and convenient in the interest of justice to do so. The affidavit filed by DW1 in lieu of chief examination and his evidence in cross-examination, speak by itself and it clearly reveal that it is just and convenient to invoke the power under Section 107(2) CPC and to appoint a Receiver under Order XL Rule 1 CPC. This Court is satisfied that Sri. Y. Thajudeen Koya, Retired District Judge, can be appointed as Receiver. The court below shall fix monthly remuneration to be paid to the Receiver and such amount shall not be less than Rs. 25,000/- per month. All the affairs of the Trust and the school shall be handed over and entrusted to the said Receiver. The Receiver shall manage and administer the Trust and its properties including the school in accordance with the present bye-laws till a proper scheme is formulated and a properly elected Board of trustees is constituted. In the result, these RFAs and the Cross Objection are allowed and the impugned judgment and decree passed by the court below are set aside except the decision rendered by the court below with regard to the formulation of a proper scheme. The court below shall raise proper issues required to be decided in the matter based on the rival contentions of the parties. The parties shall be permitted to make proper amendments to their pleadings, if so advised. The parties are at liberty to adduce further evidence in the matter, if so advised. Based on such further evidence, if any, that may be adduced and the evidence presently available, the court below shall dispose of the matter, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties before the court below. The parties shall appear before the court below on 22.05.2017. In the nature of these appeals, the parties shall bear their respective costs. Registry shall send back the records at the earliest. All pending interlocutory applications in this appeal are closed.