V.M. Velumani, J.

1. All the three appeals are against the common judgment and decree dated 22.12.2000. By this Common Judgment, the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil dismissed the O.S. No. 87 of 1983 and decreed O.S. No. 102 of 1983 and O.S. No. 114 of 1986. A.S. No. 153 of 2001 and Tr. A.S. No. 235 of 2006 are filed against the Judgment decreeing O.S. No. 102 of 1983 and O.S. No. 114 of 1986. A.S. No. 940 of 2001 is filed against the dismissal of O.S. No. 87 of 1983. The facts of the case:-

O.S. No. 87 of 1983:-

1. The plaintiffs filed the above suit for

(i) Framing scheme to administer the plaintiff Trust.

(ii) Receiver to be appointed to manage the Trust pending Suit.

(iii) Declaring sale deeds in favour of defendants 47 to 49 are void.

(iv) Permanent injunction restraining defendants 16 to 20 from interfering with the management of Trust.

2. The first plaintiff, Idalakudi Parasuraman Peruntheru Trust is a private Trust. The ancestors of plaintiffs came form Dwaraka in North India five centuries ago and settled in place subsequently, called Parasuraman Peruntheru. Property in schedule "A" and "B" were granted by then Maharaja of Travancore Tax free. The same was confirmed on 1st Chitrai 661 ME inscribed on a stone pillar and was planted on the site.

3. The original members settled at the site were represented by five founder members viz. Thuvar Vidumadan, Thuuvar Raman, Thuvar Pitchai, Thuvar Kumarasamy and Thuvar Sakkimuthu. By 31st Aadi 1977 ME, the first four members purchased "C" Schedule property and built a Temple for their worship. The five members were recognised in revenue records as absolute owners of Schedule "A" to "C" properties. Thuvar or Chayakkaran of Parasuraman Peruntheru represents only those 5 persons and their family members. Apart from members of original grantees, others do not have any right to administer or manage the Trust.

4. Generally the eldest member from the members of five families manage the Trust. At present there are 18 members. Defendants 16 to 43 belong to the same community, but, are not members of five families. They came and settled down, subsequently, either due to marital ties or for business purposes.

5. Plaintiffs 2 to 4 and defendants 1 to 15 are present beneficiaries of first plaintiff Trust. Defendants 16 to 43 only lessees under Trust in respect of "B" schedule property. Defendant 44 is a mortgagee. 45th defendant paying ground rent. 46th Defendant is under Maduvuker arrangement under Trust.

6. Defendants 16 to 20 alleged to have executed sale deeds in favour of defendants 47 to 49 for a portion of "B" schedule property. The said sale deeds are null and void and not binding on the Trust.

7. Defendant 8th is the eldest member of the families. But, he is of un-sound mind. Hence, second plaintiff, the next eldest member has been managing the Trust affairs, after the death of his father Arumugam. "A" schedule properties are in the absolute possession or in the absolute enjoyment by plaintiffs 2 to 4 and defendants 1 to 15.

8. Defendants 16 to 43 due to their numerical strength often created trouble in the village. They have been filing objections before HR and CE Department to treat the Trust and Temple as public. The second plaintiff filed O.A. No. 28 of 1975, before the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Admn.) Department, Thirunelveli, for a declaration that Temple and Trust are private character. Defendants 26, 27, 30, 34 and 40 opposed the same. The Department held that Trust is a private one. Defendants 16 to 43 are bound by the said decision.

9. Defendants 16 to 43, by show of force and practicing fraud on second plaintiff (sic) taken away all the books and movables of Trust from second plaintiff and obtained his signature by force. They have created certain records to show that second plaintiff was relieved of his Trusteeship on 19.06.1983. The mala fide intention of defendants 16 to 20 could be seen from the fact that they have sold a portion