JUDGMENT : 1. The Court : This is an application by the present trustees alleging mismanagement of the trust and actions of the outgoing trustees in relation to certain valuable immovable properties. The petitioners allege that the outgoing trustees have entered into a development agreement with Ghata Balaji Realded Private Limited and K.K. Mimani for development of the trust properties on un-favourable terms and dehors the terms of the Trust Deed. The petitioner alleged that under the said development agreement the trustees would get 5% of the total constructed area and 95% of the constructed area are to be retained by the developer. The said development agreement also contains that the trust property shall be sold, transferred and conveyed to the prospective buyers although such sale is prohibited. It is stated in the petition that under the development agreement the trustees have received Rs.10,00,000/- (ten lakhs) from the developer as interest free security deposit where as the value of the property would be more than 60 crores. The said development agreement is in effect a virtual sale of the trust property which is not permissible under the trust deed and accordingly the present trustees’ resolution on 28th July, 2017 has rescinded such agreement. The petitioners have referred to an earlier order dated 26th April, 1966 passed by this Court in an application by some of the trustees in relation to development and long term lease of the said immovable properties by what the trustees were authorised to grant a lease of a portion of the premises 38, Barrackpur Trunk Road. The Realded developers as well as Mimani are represented in this proceeding. The objections raised by them are that the property concerned in situated at Barrackpore and that the Mimani had filed a suit before the Civil Court at Sealdah seeking specific performance of the agreement alleged to have been entered into between the Trustees and Mimani. 2. It is submitted that on behalf of the Mimani that trustees have wrongfully filed a suit for eviction and in the said proceeding a settlement was arrived at between the Trustees and Mimani to the effect that on expiry of the original period of lease, the Trustees would renew the said lease which however, the trustees have refused to do upon the expiry of the lease on 31st May, 2017. Instead of the trustees issued a notice to the said Mimani on 31st January, 2016 requiring them to quit and vacate the property in question upon the expiry of the lease period. 3. The learned Counsel for the developers submits that the development agreement entered into between deed and trustees and the developers in the year 2015. The developer had paid a sum of Rs.10 lakhs and have expended huge amount on the basis of the registered Power of Attorney given by the trustees to the developer to make the property free from encumbrance. It is submitted that some of the trustees to the present application have even consented to such an agreement and they cannot at this stage object to the execution of the said development agreement. 4. The objection raised by the developer prima facie appears to be unsustainable in view of the fact that the nature of the agreement is such that it is a virtual sale in favour of the developer and apparently not beneficial to the trustees. The trustees are required to act for the benefit of the trust and of the beneficiaries. The trustees in view of the earlier orders authorising trustees to enter into a lease agreement could not have in the instant case departed from the said producer and entered into private negotiation without the leave of the Court. In any event no agreement could have entered into in the year 2015 concerning a portion of the said property when the facts remain that lease in respect of a portion of property was still in-subsistance. It could be that the developer is an alter ego of the Mimani. The objection raised by Mimani is also not sustainable as it appears that under the lease agreement the Mimani could not have any right after May 31, 2017. 5. On such prima facie satisfaction, the Ghata Balaji Realded Private Limited as well as K.K. Mimani are restrained from dealing with the said properties in any manner whatsoever. It would be open for the Realded properties to seek refund of a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- alleged to have been paid to the outgoing trustees. The outgoing trustees submit that the said sum has been kept separately and they are willing to refund it if such direction is passed. 6. Mr. It would be open for the Realded properties to seek refund of a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- alleged to have been paid to the outgoing trustees. The outgoing trustees submit that the said sum has been kept separately and they are willing to refund it if such direction is passed. 6. Mr. Bose, learned Counsel representing the Realded developer, on instructions, submits that his client is not willing to seek refund of the said amount as they have expended sums over and above Rs.10,00,000/-. 7. Affidavit-in-opposition shall be filed within three weeks from date; reply thereto, if any, shall be filed within two weeks thereafter. 8. The Realded Developer as well as the K.K. Mimani shall also be entitled to file affidavit in this proceeding, if they so desire. 9. The objection as to the maintainability of this application raised by the Developer and Mimani are kept open to be decided at the final hearing of this application. The incoming trustees shall deposit the said sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with any nationalised bank in a short term fixed deposit yielding highest return within a week from date and shall keep it renewed until further order.