The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Sec.92 of the Code in relation to the suit involving trust properties and the importance of obtaining leave of the Court for such suits.

K.Govindarajan,J.

1. Defendants 3, 4, 9 and 21 having aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.S.No.170/1981, as confirmed by the learned single Judge, in Tr.Appeal No.11/1993, filed the above Appeal.

2. Plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 5 filed a suit in O.S.No.170/1981 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Sholinghur to direct the transfer of trust properties to the plaintiffs’ beneficiaries and deliver the same to them in pursuance of the title declared in O.S.No.44/1912, on the file of the Sub-Court, North Arcot District at Chittoor and for direction to defendants 1 to 7, 8, 21 and 22 to duly account for the rent and profits of the trust properties and pay them the sums available with them as belon ging to trust together with interest till payment.

3. It is not in dispute that the suit properties originally belonged to Velliagaram Alwar Chetty. He executed a deed of declaration of trust dated 19.1.1898 for supply of flowers to the deities for the plaintiffs’ temples and for distribution of cooked rice to desanthiries. Subsequently, the said Alwar Chetty seems to have cancelled the said trust deed, as the trustees were not prepared to act as trustees. Thereafter, an extent of 23 cents in Survey No.1031/3 was sold by defendants 1 to 6 in favour of 9th defendant under a sale deed dated 9.4.1972. On the basis of a scheme framed, a decree was passed with respect to the said properties, in O.S.No.44/1912, on the file of the Sub-Court, Chittoor, the plaintiffs came forward with the above suit.

4. The defendants contested the suit contending inter alia that the trust deed was cancelled and as there is no trust at all, the vendors as heirs of the said Alwar Chetty have every right to sell the properties. It is also stated that the plaintiffs cannot sustain the suit on the basis of the decree under Ex.A8, dated 2.8.1930, as no pleadings were filed and it is only a certified copy of the suit register. The defendants have also referred to the acquisition proceedings under which the properties were acquired and compensation was paid to Ramasami, the great grandson of the said Alwar Chetty. According to the defendants, the properties in question are dealt with as private properties. It is also stated that the suit is not maintainable without getting permission to file a suit under Sec.92 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

5. The trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for. The appellants/defendants 3, 4, 9, 21 & 22, preferred Appeal in A.S.No. 106/1986 on the file of the District Court, Vellore. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the said appeal was directed to be transferred to this Court and numbered as Tr.Appeal No.11 of 1993. The learned Judge in the judgment dated 7.9.1999, confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence the above Appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the trust deed Ex.A6 (translation copy was marked as Ex.A7), dated 19.1.1898 was cancelled under Ex.B4 dated 8.1.1902 and thereafter the heirs of the said Alwar Chetty treated the said properties as their personal properties. Under Ex.B7, the said properties were also leased out. Moreover, according to the learned counsel, the trust is formed only for specific endowment and so it cannot be said that the lands belong to the trust. Referring to the Land Acquisition proceedings under Ex.B8 to B10, learned counsel also submitted that since the properties belong to the heirs of the said Alwar Chetty personally, the amounts were paid to them by the Government. Referring to the decree Ex.A8 which the plaintiffs sought to enforce, learned counsel submitted that no details of the properties and the trust deed are mentioned in the decree and the plaintiffs have not made pleadings so as to enable them to claim res judicata and so the suit based on the said certified copy of the suit register cannot be sustained. Referring to Ex.A22, partition deed, learned counsel submitted that merely because the properti