L.P.A.against appellate order will not lie.

N.V. Balasubramanian, J.

1. In the above said Letters Patent Appeals, the following question was referred for decision:

"Whether Letters Patent Appeal would lie against the order of a learned single Judge of the High Court passed in a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal?"

2. The necessary facts leading to the reference of the abovesaid question are as follows: One Durairajan and his son D. Rajkumar filed a scheme suit in O.S. No. 684 of 1995 on the file of Sub-Judge, Coimbatore, to frame a scheme for the administration of a trust known as G.R. Govindarajulu & Sons Charities. The trust was created by a trust deed dated 19. 1958. In the said scheme suit, I.A. No. 944 of 1995 was filed praying for an interim injunction restraining D. Srinivasan from acting as a trustee. I.A. No. 943 of 1995 was filed praying for an interim injunction restraining the respondents therein from re-constituting and replacing or altering the Trust Board without the sanction of the Court. Interim injunction in both the above said applications were initially granted by the trial court. The trial court then by a common order dated 28. 1995 vacated the interim injunction granted in both the applications on the grounds (1) Chandrakanthi and Rengasamy in collusion co- opted the trustees and disqualified Seethalakshmi as trustee, without notice; (2) the meetings were not held as per the trust deed or resolutions; and (3) D. Srinivasan is not a fit person for trusteeship and he was restrained from attending the Trust Board meetings and allowed Seethalakshmi to act as a trustee in the Trust Board.

3. While vacating the interim injunction in I.A. No. 943 of 1995, the trial court held that (1) the trustees can be co-opted by an unanimous decision of the Trust Board; (2) the irregularities pointed out by Rajkumar have not been rectified; (3) the minutes of the Trust Board meeting dated 16. 1995 were not signed by Rajkumar.

4. On contest made by the respondents, the trial court, with the above said findings, dismissed the applications for injunction. Against the common order, the following civil miscellaneous appeals were filed before this Court:

1. CMA. No. 1341 of 1995 against I.A. No. 943 of 1995 by respondents 1,2, and 3.

2. CMA. No. 1388 of 1995 against I.A. No. 944 of 1995 by do.

3. CMA. No. 1441 of 1995 against I.A. No. 944 of 1995 by D.Srini-vasan.

4. CMA. No. 1442 of 1995 against I.A. No. 943 of 1995 by D. Srinivasan.

5. CMA. No. 1357 of 1995 against I.A. No. 943 of 1995 by Rajkumar and Devarajan.

5. The learned single judge of this Court by a common order dated 5. 1996 and by a clarification order dated 15. 1996, modified the order of the trial Court to the effect that Seethalakshmis removal can be decided in the suit and that the co-option can be effected by majority. The learned single Judge also granted permission to the Trust Board to fill up the vacancy of Rajkumar by a majority decision even during summer holidays and the appointment should be ratified by the Sub-Court, Coimbatore. It was pointed out that no Trust Board meeting was held from 29. 1995 till the date of the order passed in the civil miscellaneous appeals on 15. 1996. It is also to be noted that on 19. 1994, the Trust Board passed a resolution adopting unanimously to increase the strength of the Trust Board members from seven to nine.

6. Against the common order passed by the learned single Judge in the civil miscellaneous appeals, these appeals LPA. Nos.87 to 90 and 101 of 1996 were filed and interim orders also sought for the appointment of Seethalakshmi and Rajkumar as the trustees of the Trust Board. Stay of the operation of the orders of the first appellate Court was also asked for. At the time of admission of these Letters Patent Appeals, the question of maintainability of Letters Patent Appeals was raised. Since LPA No. 90 of 1994 has already been referred to a Full Bench to decide this question, the other appeals were also referred to the Full Bench for decid