The suit filed for declaration of title of the plaintiffs family to the property as their private family trust property is not maintainable in the absence of registration of the plaintiffs family trust. The suit filed without following the provisions under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC on behalf of the Community is not maintainable.

This appeal has been directed against the decree and judgment in O.S.No.44 of 2004 on the file of the Court of District Judge, Tiruvannamalai. The defendants in the suit are the appellant herein. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of the title of their family trust property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and for costs.

2.The averments in the plaint in brief relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as follows:-

2(a) The plaint schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are enjoying the plaint schedule properties and their predecessors in title from generation to generation for more than two centuries. There is no other title deed is available in respect of the plaint schedule properties in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaint schedule properties have been set apart as family trust by the predecessors of the plaintiffs about two centuries back. The plaintiffs grand father Nallathambi Mudaliar is the eldest son of Muthappa Mudaliar. It has been the practice and custom in the family that the eldest male member will be incharge of the family trust and this line of succession has been followed all these years.

2(b) The object of the plaintiffs predecessors were that the members of the plaintiffs predecessors family and their relations who come down to Tiruvannamalai wanted a place for their stay, and hence the plaintiffs predecessors acquired the plaint schedule property out of the own funds for their family use. Further, the plaintiffs predecessors made a family trust of the schedule mentioned property and started to provide a flower garland daily to Lord Arunachaleswarar from the flower garden. The plaintiffs predecessors constructed a small portion as a building for their stay and used the remaining portion as garden. They engaged a gardener to look after the building and the garden. The family of the gardener stayed in a portion of the building and looking after the building on behalf of the plaintiffs family.

2(c) During karthigi festival the members of the plaintiffs family and their relations used to come and stay in the plaint schedule property. Thus the plaint schedule property is the family trust property of the plaintiffs. Nallathambi Mudaliar had three sons viz. Appavuperumal Mudaliar, Muthusamy and Ramasamy. The 1st plaintiff is the only son of Appavuperumal Mudaliar. Muthusamy has four sons viz. Balasubramanian (2nd plaintiff), Nallathambi, Sundaramurhty and Raghupathi. Ramasamy has four sons viz. Rajasekaran (3rd plaintiff) Sundravadivelu, Sathiamurthy and Rejendran. Thus the plaintiffs 1 to 3 represent their respective branches of their family.

2(d) It is only the plaintiffs who are the absolute owners of the schedule mentioned property and the schedule mentioned property is their family trust property. The plaintiffs alone have been exercising all rights of ownership over the plaint schedule property. The relatives of the plaintiffs are permitted to come and stay in the schedule mentioned property only with the permission of the plaintiffs during Karthigai Festival. A portion of the plaint schedule property was intended to be acquired by the Government and hence the Tahsildar, Tiruvannamalai, issued a notice to the plaintiffs grand father Nallathambi Mudali on 012. 1915 calling upon him to put forth his objections for the said acquisition by 012. 1914. The said communication is numbered as R.O.C.No.4653 and the original of the said communication is also filed by the plaintiffs. In pursuance of the above notice the Government had acquired a portion of the plaint schedule property and formed the municipal scavenging lane in between Chunnambukkara Street and Sannathi Street and awarded a sum of Rs.391 as compensation to Nallathambi Mudali by order dated 19.01.1915. The communication in original is also filed by the plaintiffs. This do