The defendants in O.S.No.469 of 1996 are the civil revision petitioners before this Court, challenging the order passed in I.A.No.15581 of 2012 in O.S.No.469 of 1996, dated 04.04.2013, on the file of the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. It is the case of the petitioners/defendants is that the respondent/plaintiff has filed the above suit in O.S.No.469 of 1996 before the learned VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai for recovery of possession of suit schedule mentioned property by Sri Muthukumaraswamy Devasthanam represented by selected trustees in pursuance of the Order 31 Rule 2 of C.P.C. and there are several trustees, all the trustees are necessary parties. Therefore, the trust shall be represented by all the trustees compulsorily. In the absence of the representation by all the trustees, the suit is not maintainable for want of proper representation.

3. The petitioners/defendants also come forward by saying that the election has been conducted once in every five years. The last election was conducted on 23.11.2008 and after lapse of 15 months, the plaintiffs have filed an application in I.A.No.5382 of 2010 to implead the elected Trustees on record namely S. Muthu, C.G. Lakshmi Narayanan, P. Ekambaram as plaintiffs 5 to 7 in the above suit. The other elected trustee M. Thilakumar has already on records as 1st defendant and the defendants also filed a detailed counter. During the pendency of the said petition, the plaintiff has filed another application in I.A.No.11707 of 2010 to amend the cause title as Sri Muthukumaraswamy Devasthanam represented by its Senior Trustees P. Balasubramaniam, V.S. Bhaskar, P. Thilakumar and T.K. Shanmugam. The petitioners/defendants also filed counter and the application in I.A.No.5382 of 2010 was dismissed on 03.02.2011 as withdrawn and the application in I.A.No.11707 of 2010 was dismissed on merits by order dated 18.11.2011.

4. Pursuant to the order passed in the above I.A., the petitioners/ defendants have filed a memo dated 01.12.2011 praying for dismissal of the suit for want of proper representation of the plaintiff. During the pendency of the memo, the plaintiff had filed another interim application in I.A.No.20226 of 2011 seeking for substitution of new trustees and the same was dismissed and the suit was posted to 01.10.2012 for defendant's side evidence, but in the above suit, the plaintiff is not properly represented by the existing Trustee i.e. the newly elected trustees as per election held on 23.11.2008, which is a mandatory requirement as contemplated for a suit by or against the Trustees under Order 31 Rule 2 of CPC.

5. Where there are more trustees than one, all shall be entitled to act jointly, they would be in a position of joint trustees and form a Corporate Body. The representation of an institution namely a Trust can be valid or effective only if all the trustees jointly act. In fact, where a religious institution has more trustees than one, the institution cannot be represented unless all the trustees are made as parties. Therefore, they filed the petition in I.A.No.15581 of 2012 in O.S.No.469 of 1996 under Order 31 Rule 2 read with Section 151 of CPC with a prayer to dismiss the suit in O.S.No.411 of 1996.

6. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent by adopting by the respondents 1, 2 and 4. The respondent/plaintiff Devasthanam represented by the then existing Trustees for a declaration that the sale of the property by the defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the defendants 3 to 5 is not valid and for recovery of possession. The Scheme Suit in C.S.No.117 of 1907, an order was passed by this Court in the year 1910 by approving a scheme. As per the scheme, the administration of the temple is vested with the Board of Trustees consisting of five Trustees, namely one senior Trustee and four other Trustees from among the members of Ayira Vysya Beri Chetty Community.

7. The respondent/plaintiff also come forward by saying that subsequent