The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of fulfilling obligations under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and the discretionary nature of arbitration clauses. The judgment also emphasizes the need to protect the interest of the trust and prevent the misuse of trust funds.

1. The plaintiff in the original suit O.S.No.5851 of 2004 on the file of the learned XI Assitant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is the appellant in the second appeal. The suit was filed by the appellant herein/plaintiff against the respondents herein for a permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the administration and management of the technical institution of the said Trust, namely Thirutani Arulmiku Murugen Educational Trust. Though the suit was filed against totally five persons, the suit, as against the fifth respondent (Kamalakar), had been dismissed for non-prosecution and the suit, as against the other respondents, namely respondents 1 to 4 alone was proceeded with. Out of the above said four persons, namely respondents 1 to 4, except the first respondent/first defendant, the other three respondents, did not contest the suit and remained ex-parte before the trial court. The first respondent/first defendant alone filed a written statement and contested the suit. The said suit was decreed as prayed for by the learned XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai by judgment and decree dated 12.01.2007, without cost.

2. As against the said judgment and decree of the trial court, the first respondent herein/first defendant preferred an appeal on the file of the lower appellate court, namely the court of the learned V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in A.S.No.324/2007.In the said appeal, a petition under Order XLI Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code was filed as C.M.P.No.199/2009 for reception of additional documentary evidence. The learned lower appellate judge allowed the said petition and marked the document produced by the first respondent herein/first defendant as Ex.B1 and disposed of the said petition. So far as the appeal is concerned, the learned lower appellate judge, on a re-appreciation of evidence, allowed the appeal by his judgment and decree dated 29.09.2009, reversed and set aside the decree passed by the trial court and dismissed the suit O.S.No.5851/2004 filed by the appellant herein/plaintiff, with a direction that the respective parties should bear their own cost. The said judgment and decree of the learned lower appellate judge dated 29.09.2009 is impugned in this second appeal.

3. After notice before admission to the respondents was ordered, the first respondent alone entered appearance through counsel. The submissions made by Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned senior counsel, representing the counsel on record for the appellant and by Mr.M.S.Krishnan, learned Senior counsel, representing the counsel on record for the first respondent were heard. The judgments of the courts below and the decrees drawn there from and also the documents produced in the form of typed set were perused.

4. The plaintiff in O.S.No.5851/2004 on the file of the XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, who proved to be successful before the trial court but unsuccessful before the lower appellate court in an appeal filed by the first respondent herein, has come forward with the present second appeal questioning the correctness of the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court. The suit was filed by the appellant for a bare injunction not to interfere with the administration and management of the technical institution of the suit trust, by name Thirutani Arulmiku Murugen Educational Trust. The said prayer was made based on the contention of the appellant herein/plaintiff that when the above said trust faced certain difficulties in running the trust institution, namely a polytechnic in the name of the trust, the Board of Trustees, by a resolution dated 210. 1999 entrusted the administration and management of the trust with the appellant/plaintiff; that the same was followed by a Memorandum of Understanding dated 210. 1999 to the effect that the object of the trust should be completed entirely by the plaintiff and the then existing trustees agreed to resign their trusteeship receiving c