S. Nagamuthu, J.

The petitioners in Trust O.P. No. 96 of 2002 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi, have come forward with these appeals challenging the order dated 17.10.2005 made in the said Trust O.P., and in fifteen interlocutory applications. The respondents herein are the respondents in the said Trust O.P. The 11th respondent in the Trust O.P., has come forward with M.P. No. 4 of 2007 questioning the very maintainability of the above appeal suits.

2. The above Trust O.P., relates to six private Trusts created in the year 1996, on various dates. "Senthil Benefit Trust" and "Senthil Welfare Trust" were founded by one S. Kalidasan by means of two different deeds dated 19.11.1986, making G. Vetivel, the first respondent herein and one G. Padmavathi as Trustees. "Sinnamani Welfare Trust" and yet another "Sinnamani Benefit Trust" were founded under two different deeds dated 17.12.1986 by S. Kalidasan making G. Vetivel and Sinnamani as Trustees. "Rajakumari Welfare Trust" and Another "Rajakumari Benefit Trust" were founded on 19.11.1986 by means of two different deeds making G. Padmavathi and G. Vettivel as Trustees. In all the six trusts, the first respondent was the managing trustee and he was managing affairs of the trusts. The appellants are the beneficiaries of all the six trusts. In all the above six trusts, the period of trustees is only 12 years and the said period got expired in the month of November and December, 1998.

3. As per the terms of the trust deeds, the trustees shall transfer, hand over, deliver and pay the assets and properties, representing the Trust Fund to the beneficiaries on the "vesting date" or as soon thereafter as may be. The vesting date as per the deeds means the date of expiry of 12 years period. The trusts shall be deemed to have been completed, when the trust fund has been transferred in accordance with the provision of the deeds. As stated above, the first respondent was managing the affairs of the trusts all these years.

4. The appellants who are the beneficiaries of all the six trusts have filed Trust O.P. No. 96 of 2002, before the learned Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi, under Sections 61, 62, 65, 66 and 92 of Trust Act read with Order 6 Rules 1 to 3, 5 to 7 and 26 C.P.C., seeking for the following reliefs:

a. To call upon the respondents 1 to 12 to restore the corpus and accretions gained by the six trusts detailed in the schedule from the date of their incorporation till the date of realization.

b. To trace the fissipations effected on the Schedule Trusts by the defendant and his associate companies.

c. To appoint a receiver for all the properties of the defendant and through lifting the corporate veil on the company held by the defendant including Mountain Spinning Mills.

d. To trace the fissipations on the schedule Trusts and bring the properties and monies to the petitioners Court account from whichever source they are available.

e. To call upon the defendant to account from the late of creation of the six schedule trusts as to bring the proceeds to the Court.

5. The respondents 2 to 16 have been added as parties in the said Trust O.P., on the allegation that those companies were floated by the first respondent and the corpus and accretions gained by all the six trusts are in the hands of the respondents 2 to 16 also.

6. During the pendency of the said O.P., the respondents 1 to 14 and 16 have filed 15 Interlocutory Applications separately under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., requesting the Court to reject the said Trust O.P. In all the interlocutory applications, the grounds raised are more or less the ground raised in all these interlocutory applications were;

(a)there is no cause of action disclosed against the respondents,

(b)the said Trust O.P., is barred under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, since the relief sought for are to be agitate only by means of a suit,

(c)the reliefs prayed for in the Trust O.P., is barred by limitation and

(d)