(Prayer: Appeal No.1257 of 2008 filed under Section 100 C.P.C. against the decree and judgment passed in A.S.No.8 of 2005 dated 25.09.2007 confirming the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.116 of 2003 dated 13.12.2004 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai.

Second Appeal No.1258 of 2008 filed under Section 100 C.P.C. against the decree and judgment passed in A.S.No.9 of 2005 dated 25.09.2007 dismissing the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.117 of 2003 dated 13.12.2004 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai.)

A.S.No.8 of 2005 filed against the decree and judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai, dismissing the suit in O.S.No.116 of 2003 filed by the Plaintiff for removing the first Defendant from the post of trusteeship of the suit property as per will dated 30.03.1958 and appointing the Plaintiffs as Trustees or appointing new trustees and also for framing scheme for proper administration of the suit property and its trust by the Plaintiffs. Similarly A.S.No.9 of 2005 filed against the decree and judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai dismissing the suit in O.S.No.117 of 2003 filed for permanent injunction against the defendants 1 to 3 from in any manner entering the suit property by way of mortgage, long term lease and sale to the 4th defendant or to any other person and making any structural alteration of the building.

2. Both the suits were tried jointly by the trial court. Trial Court dismissed both the suits on the ground that the Trust is the private trust and no scheme is required. As against which two appeal suits were filed in A.S.No.8 and 9 of 2005 respectively. First Appellate court in A.S.No.8 of 2005 filed against the comprehensive suit for framing scheme has held that the suit properties are public purpose. Having held no scheme is required since the first defendant was administering the trust property. In injunction suit, restraining the defendants from leasing the property for more than three years after 26.01.2025, against which the present Second Appeals are filed.

3. S.A.No.1257 of 2008 filed by the Plaintiffs against the dismissal of comprehensive suit and confirmed in the first appeal. S.A.No.1258 of 2008 also filed by the Plaintiffs against the dismissal of the injunction suit and the same was reversed in the first appeal.

4. Since the issues are same and the parties are same, this Court is decided to dispose of both these Second Appeals in a Common Judgment. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as per their own ranking before the trial Court. The brief facts leading to filed these two Second Appeals are as follows:

4. (a) The First Defendant is elder brother of the Plaintiffs, Second Defendant is the son of the First Defendant and the Third Defendant is the wife of the First Defendant. The property originally belong to one Arunagiri Chetty and his wife Veerammal. The Plaintiffs and First Defendant are sons of the Arunagiri Chettiar. Arunagiri Chettiar executed a Will on 22.2.1899 in respect of his properties in favour of his wife Veerammal and his Grand daughters Kannammal. Balammal, Rukmani Ammal and daughter in law Sundarammal. He had also appointed executors of the said Will and directed his wife Veerammal and executors to carryout the Trust made by him under the said Will. One such charitable purpose mentioned in the said Will being, lighting of the lamps in Arunachalaeswarar Temple daily, doing Mandagapadi on Karthigai festival and feeding the poors during Karthigai Festival season. He had directed his wife Veerammal to do the above charities and after her death directed the grand daughter Rukmani Ammal to continue the charity. Veerammal has been doing the charities as per the Will of Arunagiri Chetti during his life time. She had executed a registered Will on 9.8.1915 in favour of Rukmani Ammal and styl