Illegally appointed Muthavalli cannot claim right.

1. The petitioners have filed the above revisions against the order passed in E.A.Nos. 83 of 1993 and 378 of 1992 in O.S. No. 10 of 1909, on the file of the Sub-Court, Chidambaram, dated 211. 1998.

2. One Hazarath Syed Sha Rahmathulla Sahib was given certain properties in Killai Village, Chidambaram Taluk, Samayapuram Village, Tiruchi District, and in Navabpettai, Chidambaram Taluk by the then King. After his death, he was intered in Killai village and his son Syed Sha Edullah was also intered after his death in Navabpettai Durgah. He had two sons, namely, Syed Sha Ghulam Mohideen and Syed Sha Phool. Syed Sha Phool had a quarrel with his father with respect to the properties and he separated himself from the family by getting 20 kani lands. The balance extent of the properties had come under the control of Syed Sha Gulam Mohideen. With a view to continue the object for which the properties were given by the original owner, the said Syed Sha Gulam Mohideen executed two documents in the year 1926 and 1939. The said Syed Sha Gulam Mohideen had three sons, namely, Fariduddin Athar, Mohamad Ghouse and Gulam Jeelani. The said three sons were directed to administer the three Durghas at Killai, Navabpettai and Samayapuram. There was a dispute between the parties regarding the management of the abovesaid Durghas. One Syed Sha Gulam Javani Sudari Sahib filed the suit in O.S. No. 10 of 1909 on the file of the Sub-Court, Mayavaram. The said suit was dismissed on 212. 1909. Thereafter the plaintiff therein filed appeal in A.S. No. 156 of 1910 before this Court. The Division Bench of this Court remanded the matter for fresh disposal. After remand, the learned sub-Judge in the judgment dated 23. 1923 appointed Piran Sahib as the Muthavalli of Killai Durgah and Gulam Kadhar Sahib as Muthavalli with respect to the other institutions. The original plaintiff in O.S. No. 10 of 1909 who was transposed as sixth defendant in the suit, filed appeal in A.S. No. 186 of 1923 and the other defendants in the suit filed appeals against the same judgment and decree, in A.S.Nos. 76, 77 and 106 of 1926.

3. The Division Bench of this Court in modification of the decree of the trial court passed a decree to the following effect:-

.(1) that the 12th defendant Piran Sahib be and hereby is appointed as Muthavalli for the Killai durga and its endowments, and that he will be on probation for a period of three years from the 9th day of May 1933;

.(2) that the work of the said 12th defendant from April 1929 to 1936 be reviewed by the subordinate Judge of Mayavaram and that if there be no objection, he be made permanent;

.(3) that the subordinate Judge of Mayavaram do pass the said 12th defendants

.accounts kept as receiver and do also ascertain the surplus available for distribution and deal with the same;

.(4) that the security of rupees six thousand already furnished by the said 12th defendant as receiver do continue during the period of his probation aforesaid;

.(5) that the said 12th defendant do take possession of the durga of Killai and all its properties, moveables and immoveables;

.(6) that the 2nd plaintiffs appointment (by the lower court) on probation for three years as Muthavalli for the Navabpettai durga and its endowments be and hereby is confirmed, without the discretion of the Subordinate Judge of Mayavaram being in any way fettered with in the matter of examining his work;

.(7) that the said 2nd plaintiff do take possession of the durga at Nawabpettai and all its properties, moveables and immoveables;

.(8) that the 12th defendant and the 2nd plaintiff as soon as they assume the management of their respective trusts do submit to the court (Sub court, Mayavaram) a correct inventory of all moveables and immoveables possessed by their respective durgas;

.(9) that the 12th defendant and 2nd plaintiff do submit a correct list of outstandings and cash possessed by their respective durgas;

.(10) that the 12th defendant and the 2