JUDGMENT (Prayer: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and Decree dated 13.01.2003 made in A.S.No. 69 of 2001 on the file of First Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 16.02.2001 made in O.S.No. 428 of 1996 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.) 1. The plaintiffs in O.S.No. 428 of 1996 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Coimbatore are the appellants herein. 2. The first plaintiff is the father of the second plaintiff. They had filed the suit seeking a direction to frame a scheme for proper and effective management of Sri Rao Sahib Maranna Gowder School, Sulivan Street, Coimbatore, in accordance with the trust deed dated 24.11.1915 and to remove the first defendant from the administration of the School and to appoint the first plaintiff as the proper person to carry out the administration of the school and for costs of the suit. 3. The plaintiffs T.A.Maruthachalam and his sons T.M.Mohanraj, stated that the School called Sri Maranna Gowder High School at Sulivan Street in Coimbatore was founded by late Sri Maranna Gowder along with C.T.Thiruvenkataswamy and S.N.Ramaswamy Iyer. It was originally called “Anne Besant Girls High School”. They handed over the management of the School to the then Theosophical Educational Trust at Adayar, in then Madras by trust deed dated 24.11.1915. From that date onwards, the Theosophical Educational Trust was in management of the School. It was stated that such handing over of the management was done with the hope that the Theosophical Educational Trust would further the interest of the School and advance it and ensure that the students, who studied there are given proper education and that the administrator would also administer the School keeping in mind the fact that they had been handed over management only to ensure that the School functions properly and effectively. 4. The plaintiffs, however claimed that their hopes failed owing to various acts of mismanagement which they charged particularly against the first defendant, who was the President of the Besant Centenary Trust, Adyar, Madras. The second defendant was the Maranna Gowder High School represented by its Secretary, C.R.Baskaran. 5. 4. The plaintiffs, however claimed that their hopes failed owing to various acts of mismanagement which they charged particularly against the first defendant, who was the President of the Besant Centenary Trust, Adyar, Madras. The second defendant was the Maranna Gowder High School represented by its Secretary, C.R.Baskaran. 5. Among the various grievances raised by the plaintiffs in the plaint were that about ½ acre of land which had been so donated for the purpose of the School has been encroached by third parties and the management, namely, the first defendant, had not taken any effective steps to remove such encroachment. It was also claimed that the accounts were not being properly maintained and even a compound wall were not built. It was also stated that the buildings were in a dilapidated condition. Raising such grievances, the suit was filed. 6. The defendants entered appearance on receipt of suit summons and filed a written statement denying and disputing the averments made in the plaint. Specific effort was made to point out that there was advancement in the progress of the School. Among various steps, it was claimed that the School which was originally handed over in the year 1915 was upgraded to a boys/girls middle school in the year 1962 and later to a high school in the year 1990. It was stated that as on the date of the filing of the written statement, there were nearly 450 children undergoing education in the High School and about 500 children undergoing education upto the middle school level. It was stated that Classes 1 to 8 were aided classes and class 9 to 10 were self financing classes. With respect to upgrading the construction, it was stated that about five class rooms had been additional built at a cost of Rs.1,70,000/- and a further sum of Rs.1,10,000/- had been spent for putting up further class rooms. It was also stated that for upgrading the School from middle school to high school, a sum of Rs.1/- lakh had been deposited as directed by the statutory authorities. It was also stated that a primary school had been started and three separate rooms had been identified for that particular purpose. It was also stated that for upgrading the School from middle school to high school, a sum of Rs.1/- lakh had been deposited as directed by the statutory authorities. It was also stated that a primary school had been started and three separate rooms had been identified for that particular purpose. It had been stated that there has been a gradual growth in the strength of the School and that the general public have expressed confidence with respect to the manner in which the School was being run and the number of students also increased. It was therefore stated that the suit is vexatious and does not deserve any consideration. 7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned trial Judge, namely, the Principal Sub Judge, Coimbatore, had framed necessary issues and had invited the parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence. 8. The first plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and another individual Ponnuswamy was examined as PW.2. The Secretary of the School C.R.Baskaran was examined as DW-1. The plaintiffs marked Exs. A-1 to A-19. Ex.A-1 was a certified copy of the Trust Deed dated 24.11.1915 by which, the Management of the School was handed over to the first defendant. The other documents were correspondences exchange between the plaintiffs and the defendants with the plaintiffs complaining about various defects. The defendants marked Exs. B-1 to B-3. Ex.B-2 was a report of the Commissioner of Land Administration in Madras and Ex.B-3 were details with respect to the grants received by the School. 9. The trial Court examined the evidence of PW-1 and found that PW-1 during the course of his evidence, had admitted that to a large extent, he was satisfied with the work done by the Secretary of the School, namely, C.R.Baskaran, who had given evidence as DW-1. To his credit, PW-1 has stated quite honestly in the witness box that DW-1/C.R.Baskaran had been doing commendable work after assuming charge as Secretary and that the Management of the School had been placed in effective hands and that he has no complaints. 10. To his credit, PW-1 has stated quite honestly in the witness box that DW-1/C.R.Baskaran had been doing commendable work after assuming charge as Secretary and that the Management of the School had been placed in effective hands and that he has no complaints. 10. I would also place commendation on the first plaintiff since, when he had grievances or issues to be raised, he had instituted the suit but when issues have been solved by the time when he came to tender evidence, he had graciously admitted that the management is functioning properly and the school is being run in the manner in which the original owners thought it should be run. 11. Placing reliance of such evidence, the suit was dismissed, by the Principal Sub Judge, Coimbatore, by Judgment dated 16.02.2001. 12. An Appeal was however filed in A.S.No. 69 of 2001 which came up for consideration before the First Additional District Court / Chief Judicial Magistrate at Coimbatore and by Judgment dated 13.01.2003, the learned First Appellate Judge also was of the opinion that it would only be appropriate that the said findings on facts which were based on the evidence or admissions of PW-1 should not be interfered with and therefore dismissed the Appeal Suit. 13. The plaintiff then filed the present Second Appeal. The appeal has been pending before this Court from the year 2004 onwards. It had been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- “Whether the Courts below were right in dismissing the suit when the suit has been filed for framing a scheme particularly in view of the admission made by D.W.1 himself?” 14. Heard arguments advanced by Ms. G.Sumithra for Mr. B.T.Doraisamy, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.J.Antony Jesus, learned counsel who had been appointed as amicus to assist the Court on behalf of the respondents since the respondents had not engaged any counsel even though notice had been served and names have been printed in the cause list. 15. I must place my appreciation for the extremely sanguine manner in which the learned counsel Ms. G.Sumithra and the learned amicus Mr.J.Antony Jesus put forth their respective points. They realised that the subject matter was with respect to the management of a School which is now functioning and therefore, they advanced the arguments with much responsibility. 16. 15. I must place my appreciation for the extremely sanguine manner in which the learned counsel Ms. G.Sumithra and the learned amicus Mr.J.Antony Jesus put forth their respective points. They realised that the subject matter was with respect to the management of a School which is now functioning and therefore, they advanced the arguments with much responsibility. 16. The admission of PW-1 that the management was in safe hands with Mr.C.R.Baskaran, the Secretary of the School was pointed out and hope was unanimously expressed that the management would continue to effectively discharge the noble aims for which the management of the School was handed over by Ex.A-1 Trust Deed in the year 1915. Iti s evident from the records that there has been a steady up-gradation of the School also. 17. The only point of grievance is with respect to the ½ acre of land that is claimed to have been encroached. A caveat is therefore placed on the respondents and I am confident that the learned counsel for the appellants and also the amicus would impress upon the defendants/respondents herein, the necessity to take appropriate legal steps to remove such encroachment ensure that the property is retained as it was handed over to the defendants for running of the School. 18. The Second Appeal stands dismissed however with the above observations. No costs.