Provisions of Section 92 IPC not applicable.

This revision petition is filed by the third respondent in the application before court below which was one under Sec.92 of the Code of Civil Procedure for leave to institute the suit of obtaining the reliefs set out in the plaint. In the view I am taking, it necessary to refer in detail to the respective contentions put forward by the parties court below.

2. According to the plaintiffs, by a registered deed dated 7.9.1900 Mandi Venkatanaicker, respectable and prominent citizen of Erode created a trust, endowing his property religious and charitable purpose enumerated in the document. By a supplemental deed 12.4.1911, more properties were vested for the purpose of carrying out the endowment. plaint proceeded to state that the trustees were ordained to maintain regular accounts, out a balance sheet every year and carry out the religious functions and charitable objects enumerated in detail in the documents without any variation or substraction. One of properties endowed was a building in Pove-ethi Street, which was previously known Mandi Street in Erode and that is said to be the suit property. According to the plaintiff, was leased out to the first plaintiff in 1942 by the trustees for the purpose of carrying on business and he was let into possession. It is alleged that the rent paid by him was utilised for carrying out the objects of the trust. The plaint refers to certain arrangements between the heirs of the founder, which, according to the plaint, were evidenced by a document dated 1.8.1951. Plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the sons of the first plaintiff, who were taken partners in the business and the business was continued in the name M/s.A.V.G.Ponnuswami Chettiar and Sons, the fifth plaintiff. The first plaintiff received letter from the second defendant on 19.7.1988, informing him that he had sold the property to the third defendant and directing him to pay monthly rent of Rs.650 to the purchasers. The plaintiffs have alleged that the sale in favour of the third defendant is invalid and no right, title and interest passed on his favour. According to the plaintiffs there is express prohibition in the documents of trust against alienation and consequently the sale void. It is also alleged in the plaint that the plaintiffs are interested in preserving the trust citizens of Erode. Alleging that there is no trustee at present of the trust, they have came forward with the present proceedings for a declaration that the alienation in favour of the third defendant is null and void and binding on the trust, framing a scheme for the enforcement and smooth running of the and other reliefs.

3. Thus, according to the plaint the trust was created under the document of 17.9.1900 and added to by a document dated 12.4.1911. The plaint has expressly that the trust is a religious and charitable endowment. It is seen from the document 17.9.1900 that the main object of the trust was performance of Poojas to Sri Vigneswar aswamy whose idol was installed in the front portion of the choultry built by the founder S.NO.1075-A. According to the document, the founder was already utilising the income the properties, which was his self-acquisition for the said purpose. The document directs balance, if any, after spending the income for the pooja of Sri Vigneswara to be spent feeding people from outside the village who stay in the choultry. Another clause document is to the effect that if there is any interruption in the feeding, the income shall spent for and (i.e., recitation of vedas and lectures, etc., on the Lord. Thus the document shows that dominant purpose of the trust was a religious one and the document provides only surplus income for the purpose of feeding "Desantaris" (pilgrims) who stay in the chatram. The second document dated 12.4.1911 was necessitated as the founder could not carry the purpose of the trust with the income from the properties already endowed. It is stated the document that the number of persons who were benefited b