JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC, 1908 against the judgment and decree of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tidivanam made in A.S. No. 53 of 2006 dated 30.03.2007 confirming the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Munsif, Tindivanam, made in O.S. No.85 of 2003 dated 31.08.2006.

1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 30.03.2007 passed in A.S. No. 53 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tidivanam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2006 passed in O.S. No.85 of 2003 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tindivanam,

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial court.

3. The defendant in OS.No.85 of 2003 is the appellant in the Second Appeal.

4. Suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

5. Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiffs is that the suit has been laid by the plaintiffs on behalf of the villagers of Jakkampettai in the representative capacity and the suit property has been ear marked for the benefit of the villagers of the Jakkampettai village and enjoyed by the villagers in common and out of the income derived from the suit property, the temple festivals were celebrated and during 1961, the villagers of the Jakkampettai has decided to form a school in the village in the name of Rabindranath Tagore High School and also formed a committee for the opening of the school and it has been decided by the villagers that the suit property should be allotted for the purpose of running the school and accordingly as the patta for the suit property stood in the name of Venkatasubba Reddiar, in continuation of the decision of the villagers, the sons of Venkata Subba Reddiar, namely, Venkatesan, Ramachandran and Pattabi executed the settlement deed on 06.12.1961 in favour of the High School committee established for the opening of the school and the settlement deed clearly recites that the suit property should be utilised only for the running of the school and not for any other purpose and further also would recite that in the event of the school not being continued, the suit property would revert back to the villagers of Jakkampettai and however, it is put forth that the school did not continue to function and consequently, the suit property had been reverted back to the villagers of Jakkampettai. However, in the guise of holding the suit property, the defendant, as the correspondent and Head Master of the school is endeavouring to plot out the suit property and alienate the same in favour of the third parties by utilising his influence and therefore, with a view to protect the suit property from the defendant, according to the plaintiffs, they had been necessitated to lay the suit against the defendant for appropriate reliefs.

6. The defendant resisted the plaintiffs' suit contending that the suit laid by the plaintiffs in the representative capacity is not legally sustainable and also disputed the claim of the plaintiffs that the suit property belongs to the villagers of Jakkampettai. However, the defendant would admit that the suit property was settled in favour of the school committee during 1961, which committee was established only for the purpose of opening Rabindranath Tagore High School in the village and accordingly admitted the execution of the settlement deed dated 06.12.1961 by the sons of Venkata Subba Reddiar in favour of the school committee established for the opening of the school. It is put forth by the defendant that it is false to state that the suit property got reverted to the villagers on the failure of the continuation of the running of the school and according to the defendant, at the time of opening the school, he was the correspondent and also the Head Master of the school. However, due to debt problems, as the school was unable to be continued owing to the abovesaid events, the school was closed by the Government. However,