functioning and put up a new construction through a contractor of their choice. Since, defendants 2 to 5 found that the plaintiff will be a stumbling block to achieve their object of exploiting the funds of the Trust, they have decided to get rid of the plaintiff by hook or crook. It is also claimed that defendants 3 to 5 convened a meeting on 28.09.2013, without intimating the agenda of the meeting either to the plaintiff or the second defendant, who is the senior trustee, and passed a resolution removing the plaintiff as a trustee. It is claimed that the resolution removing the plaintiff as a trustee was intimated to the plaintiff subsequently. The plaintiff would claim that removal of a trustee of a Public Charitable Trust cannot be done by a mere resolution of majority of the trustees. It should be by a way of a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Claiming that the resolution dated 28.09.2013 is non-est in law, the plaintiff had issued a notice on 01.10.2013, defendants 3 to 5 questioning their authority to remove the plaintiff as trustee of the first defendant Trust. He also sought for withdrawal of the resolution dated 28.09.2013. The defendants 3 to 5 had sent a reply dated 16.10.2013, in and by which they rejected the claim of the plaintiff and had stood by the resolution, In the said reply, while admitting that no show cause notice was issued for the removal of the plaintiff, the defendants 3 to 5 had claimed that there was no duty cast on them to follow the procedure for removal of the trustee. It is also claimed
