Appellant not impleaded in the suit as such decision not binding on him.

1. The second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff.

2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff to declare its right over the suit property and for injunction restraining the first defendant and his men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is a Bajanai Madam managed by the trustees. One Ananda Chandrasekaran by deed dated 4. 1972 donated the suit property to the Madam. One Ramalinga Gramany by deed dated 4. 1970 bequeathed properties to his daughters. However, he left out some properties from the purview of the will and bequeathed those items of properties in favour of Ananda Chandra Sekaran his eldest son-in-law. In fulfillment of the wishes of Ramalinga Gramani, Ananda Chandrasekaran donated the suit property to the madam and handed over possession also to the Dharmakarthas. The first defendant has purchased 3/4th share in the suit property from the defendants 3 to 5 who are the daughters of the aforementioned Ramalinga Gramani. After the purchase the first defendant filed a suit and obtained ex parte injunction against the 3rd parties but no such injunction was obtained against the Madam.

4. The defendants conceded that Ananda Chandra sekaran had no right over the suit property and hence his donation was not valid. The plaintiffs were not in possession of the property, in O.S.No.211 of 1974 against one Kanniappan Pathri, Venu, Angalan and Murugan and injunction was obtained. Mere application to set aside the ex parte decree was dismissed. O.S. No.495 of 1980 filed by Madam by its trustee for identical relief was dismissed on 16. 1981. Therefore, the present suit is not maintainable.

5. The trial court has framed as many as five issues. The issue No.1 relates to the maintainability of the suit. The second one is whether the property devolved upon the 6th defendant by virtue of a will dated 4. 1970 by Ramalinga Gramani. In substance, the issue is as to whether the aforementioned Ananda Chandrasekaran was bequeathed with some of the properties of Ramalinga Gramani, which was not covered by his will dated 4. 1970. The trial court answered both issues in favour of the plaintiff and as well as decreed the suit.

6. The lower appellate court had framed as many as six points for determination. The main points are whether the suit filed by Madam is maintainable and whether the defendants No. 6 became the owner of the suit property. After considering all the points, the lower appellate court held that the 6th defendant did not became the owner of the suit property. Hence he has no title to donate the property to Madam. As regards the maintainability i.e. Point No. 3 it has held that the suit was not maintainable as there is no proof relating to the appointment as trustees. Another point that was considered by the lower appellate court is whether the averments in paragraph 4 of the written statement of D1 about O.S.No.211 of 1974 and 495 of 1980 are true and proved. On this point also the lower appellate court has found that paragraph 4 of the written statement of D1 stood proved through documents.

7. Paragraph 4 refers to the suit O.S.211 of 1974 and to the suit O.S.No.459 of 1980. O.S. No.211 of the 1974 was filed by the first defendant against four persons for declaration of title to suit property. Suit O.S.No. 459 of 1980 was filed by the Madam against the first defendant for setting aside the sale in favour of the defendant No. 4, the 1st defendant herein in the present suit and for injunction restraining him from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. The said suit was dismissed as not pressed on 112. 1981. The lower appellate court after perusal of Exs.B6 to B11 relating to these two suits it has answered point No. 5 in favour of the first defendant. Thus the lower appellate court has reversed the finding of the trial court and set aside the decree in favour of the plaintiff.