C.S. Karnan, J.

1. The short facts of the case are as follows:-

The first respondent/plaintiff herein had filed a suit in O.S. No. 60 of 2004, before the learned II Additional Sub Judge, Trichy, against the respondents 2 to 4/defendants 2 to 4 and the appellant/4th defendant, seeking permission to sell the suit property to the fourth respondent/third defendant and such other reliefs.

2. The first respondent/plaintiff had submitted that his Charity is a Private Trust. One K. Santhana Gopalakrishnan was the Managing Trustee. The said Trust had been established by his grandfather, namely, P.K. Thoppulan Chettiar, who had purchased the suit property under a registered Sale Deed, dated 09.06.1887. The said P.K. Thoppulan Chettiar had in turn executed a Settlement Deed, dated 08.07.1901, pertaining to the suit sproperty stating that his descendants have to perform free ceremony to the Temple. The said P.K. Thoppulan Chettiar (paternal grandfather) had raised a stone Mandabam, wherein the fourth defendant Temple had been conducting annual pilgrim procession ceremonies, namely, Tamil Month of Chittirai Festival and Tamil Month of Aadi 18th Festival, during these functions, the first respondent/plaintiff's grandfather had been honoured by the devotees of the fourth defendant Temple. The said stone Mandabam is still existing.

3. The first respondent/plaintiff had further submitted that during the month of Chitirai every year, there had been a ceremonial procession and at that time the general public and devotees had been provided with drinking water and green-gram porridge by the grandfather of the first respondent/plaintiff. Subsequently, as per the Settlement Deed, dated 08.07.1901, the grandfather of the plaintiff had mentioned that his three sons have to perform the said free service out of their income without any break or stoppage, besides the honour shown by the fourth defendant Temple had to be continued as a tradition unbroken. Further, after spending money towards free service the balance amount had to be shared from the amount delivered by the Trust property. In the event of insufficient funds from the Trust, the same had to be arranged through the family income so as to continue the tradition unbroken.

4. Further, the first respondent/plaintiff had submitted that the surviving legal heirs of P.K. Thoppulan Chettiar, namely, defendants 1 and 2 had not evinced any interest for the performance of the Charity. The second respondent/first defendant was the brother of the first respondent/plaintiff and the third respondent/second defendant was his paternal uncle's son and they had not contributed anything for the due performance of the Charity. The first respondent/plaintiff had been performing the Charity as mentioned in the Settlement Deed out of his own funds. The suit property was originally leased out to Sree Ranga Titers for a period of twenty years. The main tenant had let out the said premises to some other tenants, who had occupied the same as out tenants. Further, there had been encroachment in the suit property. Hence, a suit had been filed during 1984 for eviction and recovery of possession. In view of the encroachment, the first respondent/plaintiff was unable to derive sufficient income from the said property and hence it was very difficult to him to perform the Charity on account of pending litigation. Under these circumstances, the first respondent/plaintiff had decided to alienate the suit property for the better performance as well as development of the Charity as per the Settlement Deed. The fourth respondent/third defendant was willing to purchase the property subject to encumbrance and he was a capable person to proceed with the eviction suit to evict the encroachers through a Court of law.

5. The first respondent/plaintiff had further submitted that he entered into a Sale Agreement, dated 01.02.2001, with the fourth respondent/third defendant for the sale of the suit property for the total sale considerat