A worshipper of an idol has no personal interest in the trust property to maintain a suit for injunction to restrain the trustee from alienating the property.

Third defendant in suit O.S. No. 671 of 1998 and third respondent in I.A. No. 1202 of 1998, on the file of the Sub Judge, Erode is the revision petitioner.

2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows: The revision petitioner had purchased a building at No. D. No. 28, Pon Veethi, Erode on 15.7.1988 from one Thiru S. Gowthaman, fifth respondent. The said property was under the tenancy of one Thiru A.V.G. Ponnuswamy Chettiar. After the purchase, a request was made for the attornment of tenancy. Without conceding, the tenant along with his three sons as also a partnership firm, consisting of himself and his sons presented a plaint in an Original Suit on 11-8-1998, on the file of Subordinate Judge, Erode against three defendants viz., the petitioners vendor, petitioner and one Mandi Venkata Naicker. Dharman under Section 92 of Code of Civil Procedure. They had prayed for a declaration and permanent injunction to declare that the alienation of plaint schedule properties is null and void and not binding on Mandi Venkata Naicker Dharmam and to frame a proper scheme for the enforcement and smooth running of the trust and for a permanent injunction from interference. The Sub-Court numbered the suit and has taken it on the file as O.S. No. 338 of 1988, after granting leave under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure in I.A. No. 496 of 1988 on 11.8.1988. The revision petitioner and his vendor applied to the Sub-Court to set aside the said order granting leave and to dismiss the same. In the meanwhile, the plaintiffs in the suit made an endorsement, requesting for the return of the plaint with liberty to give notice and to proceed. Accordingly, the plaint was returned on 2.12.1988.

3. On 5.12.1988, the petitioner initiated proceedings to vacate the tenant Thiru A.V.G. Ponnusamy Chettiar by issuing a legal notice and thereafter filing an Application in R.O.C. No. 5 of 1989, before the Rent Controller, Erode for eviction. The plaintiff in the aborted suit, O.S. No. 338 of 1988 along with two more individuals, one R. Sankararamanathan and another C. Balasubramanian presented a suit before the Sub-Court, Erode praying for almost” the same relief for a declaration and for certain direct ions in reference to the same property. The Sub Court granted the leave under Section 92 of Code of Civil Procedure in I.A. No. 1024, of 1988 to institute that suit on 21.9.1990, which thereupon came to be numbered as O.S. No. 539 of 1990. As against granting of leave the petitioner herein preferred a Civil Revision Petition, C.R.P. No. 3368 of 1990 before this Court. The revision was allowed on 23.8.1991. The Special Leave Petition filed against this order was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 23.8.199 6. While the Civil Revision Petition was pending the Rent Control proceedings initiated by the petitioner were taken up. On 4.11.1991, the. Rent Controller, Erode allowed the R.C.O.P. No. 5 of 1989 and ordered eviction of the tenant, as prayed for. The said eviction order was confirmed by this Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 1082 of 1994, dated 17.11.1998. After pronouncing the Judgment in the said Civil Revision Petition, this Court at the request of the tenants granted six months’ time to them to vacate the premises on condition that the respondent therein should file an affidavit of undertaking. While so, the first respondent herein who was the sixth plaintiff in the earlier suit O.S. No. 539 of 1990 filed another suit before Sub-Court Erode, O.S. No. 671 of 1998 and also filed an Interlocutory Application No. 1202 of 1998 and obtained an interim injunction, restraining the petitioner herein and his vendor not to take any further action in pursuance of the sale deed, dated 15.7.1988, in other words not to execute the eviction order against the tenant.

4. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the orders passed by the Court below in the said Interlocutory Application as well as to dismiss the suit.

5. Learned senior counsel,