The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between private and public trusts and the application of Section 92 CPC.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 104 Order 43 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, against the fair and ex-order dated 04.06.2016 made in I.A.No.26 of 2015 in O.S.No.12 of 2015 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Virudhunagar.)

1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 104, Order 43 Rule 1 of C.P.C, challenging the order passed in I.A.No.26 of 2015 in O.S.No.12 of 2015, dated 04.06.2016, dismissing the application filed under Section 92 C.P.C by the Additional District Court, Virudhunagar.

2. At the outset, on perusal of the records, this Court is constrained to say that when the first round of litigations are pending, the Appellants/petitioners have started the second round of litigation, sensing that they would not succeed in the first round of litigation that was initiated by their father.

3. For sake of convenience and brevity, the parties will herein-after be referred as per their status/ranking before the trial Court.

4. The facts not in dispute and that are necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are as follows:

a) One Annamlai Chettiyar had two sons, namely, Muthukaruppan Chettiyar and Alagappan Chettiyar. The elder son Muthukaruppan Chettiyar had two sons, namely, Mariappan and Arumugam and the younger son had a son, namely, Shanmugasundaram Chettiyar. The petitioners and the respondents 3 to 5 are the lineal descendants of Muthukaruppan Chettiyar, the elder son of Annamalai Chettiyar. The respondents 1 and 2 are the lineal descendants of the younger son Alagappan Chettiyar. The said Annamalai Chettiyar executed a settlement deed, dated 03.02.1916 in respect of the ancestral properties and his self-acquired properties, in which, we are not concerned with the ancestral properties shown in 'A' schedule, and the self-acquired properties shown in 'B' and 'C' schedule, which were allotted to his sons Muthukaruppan Chettiyar and Alagappan Chettiyar respectively.

b) In the settlement deed, Annamalai Chettiyar had stated that in his 'D' schedule property, he constructed a 'Samadhi' for his wife Sivakamiammal and constructed a temple around it, that he also constructed a Vinayagar temple in the said land and that he formed a Nandhavanam (garden) and also dug two wells therein. He settled the properties shown in 'E' schedule for the upkeep and maintenance of temples, Nandhavanam and well in 'D' schedule property. He imposed a condition that 'E' schedule property shall remain in-alienable. He directed that daily Poojas are to be performed and 'Naivedhyam' are to be offered in the said temples and 'Thirukkan' is to be set up for the local deities at the time of annual festivals. He further directed that his two sons and their descendants are to maintain and manage the 'D' and 'E' schedule properties in the alternative years, that after his demise, he is to be buried near his wife's Samadhi in 'D' schedule and a temple is to be constructed thereon and that two yearly Guru poojas are to be celebrated on the respective star dates and on those dates, food is to be offered to Brahmins, Sannyasis, relatives and the poor people.

c) The lineal descendants of Alagappan Chettiyar and some of the lineal descendants of Muthukaruppan Chettiyar have filed a suit against the petitioners' father Sankaranarayanan and two others, in O.S.No.19 of 2001 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar to declare that the said Sankaranarayanan had ceased to be a trustee and has become disqualified to become a trustee in future and consequently, for injunction restraining him from occupying the post of trusteeship in future.

d) The very same plaintiffs in O.S.No.19 of 2001 have filed another suit in O.S.No.123 of 2001 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar against the petitioners' father Sankaranarayanan and one M/s.Saranya Steels, alleged to be the trespasser, have claimed the relief of recovery of possession from the second defendant therein. The petitioners' father