Impugning the fair and decreetal orders, dated 13.03.2006, made in E.A.No.229 of 2004 in E.P.No.120 of 2003 in O.S.No.632 of 2000 and E.A.No.201 of 2004 in E.P.No.5 of 1998 in O.S.No.192 of 2000, on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil, the civil revision petitions have been laid by the revision petitioner.

2. In respect of Aloor Chettu Oor Vagai Neinar Divavinayakar Pillaiyar Samy Koil, a Denominational Trust, it is found that a scheme decree had been passed in O.S.No.51 of 1985, on the file of the Sub Court, Padmanabhapuram and it is also found that Thiru. Neelakandadhas, Advocate, has been appointed as a receiver to manage the said Trust. It is also found that the receiver had initiated certain proceedings for the recovery of the rents and the said proceedings ended in favour of the Trust and following the same, he has also initiated appropriate execution proceedings to collect the rents in E.P.Nos.157 and 120 of 2003. Further, it is found that as per the orders of the Sub Court, Padmanabhapuram, an election was conducted for the Trust and accordingly, three Trustees were elected and they being Kanagasabapathi, Gomathi Vinayagam and Sankara Narayana Pillai (petitioner herein). At that stage of the matter, it is found that the petitioner claiming that he had been elected as a Trustee as per the direction of the Court in the scheme decree and being elected as the Managing Trustee, preferred applications in E.A.Nos.229 and 201 of 2004 as mentioned above to implead him in the place of the receiver and it is found that the said applications were contested by the other Trustees.

3. According to the contesting Trustees, the fact that the petitioner Sankara Narayana Pillai was also elected as one of the Trustees is true, however thereafter, he has resigned the post and in his place, his brother Thamba Pillai has been elected as a Trustee and therefore, according to the contesting Trustees, Sanakara Narayana Pillai cannot claim to be the elected Trustee of the Trust and further according to them, Sankara Narayana Pillai has also received the amount deposited by him on resigning the post and due publication has also been made about his resignation in the newspapers and therefore, it is stated that the petitioner is not entitled to get himself impleaded in the place of the receiver.

4. However, the petitioner Sankara Narayana Pillai has disputed the case of the contesting Trustees and in fact he has stoutly disputed their case that he had resigned his post and according to him, the alleged resignation letter said to have been given by him is a created and forged document and no reliance could be placed on the same to deny the relief sought for by him in the applications and hence, according to him, his case should be accepted.

5. In this connection, it is found that the petitioner Sankara Narayana Pillai has been examined as R.W.1 and Kanagasabapathi has been examined as P.W.1 and on the side of the contesting Trustees, Exs.P1 to P5 have been marked and on the side of the petitioner, no document has been marked. The resignation letter alleged to have been given by the petitioner has been marked as Ex.P3, the voucher alleged to have been given by him for the receipt of the amount has been marked as Ex.P2 and the paper publication has been marked as Ex.P4.

6. The issue, therefore, before the Court below was that whether as alleged by the contesting Trustees, the petitioner Sankara Narayana Pillai had resigned his post. No doubt, Sankara Narayana Pillai has, in his evidence, disputed the same, however, he has also deposed that on account of the hospitalization of his wife due to illness, he was unable to attend the meetings and also not received any communication with reference to the meetings and therefore, he had entrusted his duties even two days after being elected as the Trustee.

7. The above evidence tendered by the petitioner seems to have been lingering in the mind of the Court below and therefore, on th