Mr. T. Ravindran, J.

In this second appeal, the second defendant has impugned the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2010 made in A.S.No.29 of 2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Nagapattinam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 05.02.2007 made in O.S.No.260 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nagapattinam.

2. The second appeal has been admitted and the following substantial questions of law are formulated for consideration in this second appeal :-

"(a) Whether the suit laid by Ram Kumar claiming to be the Managing Trustee of the plaintiff's Trust is maintainable when there is a cloud over the Managing Trusteeship of the plaintiff's Trust ?

(b) Whether the Courts are legally correct in granting the relief of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction without prayer for recovery of possession of the suit property ?"

3. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction.

4. Originally, the plaintiff Trust represented by its Managing Trustee Sudhakar has laid the suit. Pending the suit, Sudhakar having died, his son Ramkumar has been substituted and he is continuing the suit as the Managing Trustee of the plaintiff Trust.

5. As regards the title of the plaintiff Trust over the suit property, there is no dispute. It is, therefore, evident that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff Trust. According to the plaintiff, the 2nd defendant is an encroacher into the suit property and without authority, as the 2nd defendant attempted to put up construction over the suit property and pending the suit, he had also raised certain structures, it is the case of the plaintiff that suitable reliefs have come to be prayed for in the suit against the defendants. The first defendant has remained ex-parte.

6. The 2nd defendant claims title to the suit property through one Karnambal under Ex.B10. However, it has not been established by the 2nd defendant that Karnambal had valid title over the suit property and therefore, it is obvious that under Ex.B10, the 2nd defendant cannot claim any valid title over the suit property.

7. Be that as it may, it is now not in dispute that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff Trust. The 2nd defendant, inter alia, has raised the plea that Sudhakar is not entitled to lay the suit as the Managing Trustee of the plaintiff Trust and on that ground alone, the plaintiff's suit should fail. Thereafter, on his son Ramkumar being substituted in his place, on his demise, it is also contended by the 2nd defendant that Ramkumar is also not entitled to proceed with the suit as the Managing Trustee of the plaintiff Trust. In other words, according to the 2nd defendant, there is a cloud over the Managing Trusteeship of the plaintiff Trust and as one of the trustees of the plaintiff Trust has raised a dispute over the Managing Trusteeship of the plaintiff Trust, it is contended that in absence of the other trustees, the suit is not maintainable.

8. As seen from the above evidence adduced by the respective parties, it is found that the plaintiff Trust has been founded by Kuppa Thevar S/o Vairappa Thevar under the Will dated 12.10.1919, which has been marked as Ex.A1. As per the terms of the said Will, it is found that the main object of the Trust is to do "Annadhanam" on the date of the death of Kuppa Thevar's father viz., Vairappa Thevar and as per the terms of the Will, it is also found that on the demise of Kuppa Thevar, his first son, viz., Vairappa Thevar administered the Trust and after his death, the next son Kandasamy Thevar held the office of the Trustee. It is also admitted that Kandasamy Thevar had three sons viz., Kuppa Thevar, Ganesa Thevar and Vairappa Thevar and they were all managing and administering the Trust properties including the suit property under an arrangement dated 15.09.1955, which has been marked as Ex.B18. It is also found that Kuppa Thevar being the eldest son of Kandasamy Thevar, as such, had been administering the Trust. On the demise