T.Ravindran, J.

Challenge in this Second Appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 09.02.2015 passed in A.S.No.108 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai reversing the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2011 passed in O.S.No.257 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sirkali.

2. The Second Appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law.

(1)Whether the lower appellate court is right in dismissing the suit filed by the appellant only on the ground that the suit filed by a single Trustee as manager is not maintainable?

(2)Whether the lower appellate court has not committed an error of law in dismissing the suit when the appellant as manager of private family Trust has filed a suit for recovery of possession from trespasser especially when earlier suit under Ex.A1 had been filed and decreed by such manager?

3. Considering the scope of the issues involved between the parties as regards the subject matter lying in a narrow compass, it is unnecessary to dwell into the facts of the case in detail.

4. It is stated that the plaintiff's Trust has laid the suit against the defendants for the recovery of possession on various grounds. The written statement has been filed by the defendants resisting the plaintiff's suit on various grounds. Based on the rival contentions put forth by the respective parties, inter alia, additional issue had also been formulated by the trial court as to whether the present Trustee is entitled to lay the suit representing the plaintiff's private Trust.

5. Therefore, the only point that arises for consideration in the Second Appeal is whether the plaintiff's suit is maintainable?

6. The plaintiff's Trust has laid the suit against the defendants represented by its present manager Selvanathan. The manager would claim that his ancestors had been Trustees of the plaintiff's Trust and also would aver that inasmuch as the second defendant being the co-Trustee and not willing to join with the plaintiff in laying the suit and accordingly he had been arrayed as a party to the proceeding as a proforma party, on that footing, laid the suit against the defendants for the reliefs prayed for. The plaintiff's counsel contended that inasmuch as the present manager Selvanathan is one of the Trustees and the other Trustee being the second defendant, he having been added as a party to the proceeding, accordingly, submitted that the determination of the first appellate court that the suit had been laid without impleading the other Trustees of the plaintiff's Trust is erroneous and incorrect and accordingly, has prayed for setting aside the finding/determination of the first appellate court holding that the plaintiff's suit is not maintainable. To hold that only the present manager Selvanathan and the second defendant Kunjithapatham are the Trustees of the plaintiff's Trust, there is no material placed on record. The Trust deed of the plaintiff's Trust has not been filed. No reason has been adduced for the same. Furthermore, the plaintiff has not placed any material to establish that the original Trust deed empowers the manager to lay the suit on behalf of the plaintiff's Trust. There is no material placed by the plaintiff to evidence that the present manager Selvanathan had been authorised or empowered to lay the suit on behalf of the plaintiff's Trust. As abovenoted, the Trust deed had not been filed. However, as per the first appellate court, the partition deed projected in the matter goes to show that one Ramakrishna Pillai and Ranthinam Pillai are the Trustees of the plaintiff's Trust. Now, according to the plaintiff, the second defendant Kunjithapatham is the son of Ramakrishna Pillai and further it is stated, during the course of evidence that the plaintiff's Trust's present manager Selvanathan and Others are the sons and daughters of Rathinam pillai, the other Trustee. Now according to the plaintiff, the suit has been laid on behalf of the plaintiff's Trust in O.