JUDGMENT :

AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.

1. What had begun as an initial attempt to get the election of the Board of Trustees of the Pachaiyappa Trust concluded turned out to be a huge exercise of churning every possible fact pertaining to the administration of the entire trust that was not the relief prayed for in the Original Application No. 283 of 2018 that was moved for the said purpose. We may gainfully extract the relief that was originally prayed for and is as follows:

"O.A. No. 283 of 2018 has been filed to grant an order of injunction restraining the respondents 3 to 7 from calling for and conducting elections for the trustees in the second respondent Trust pending disposal of the O.A."

2. The expansion of the entire litigation into an exercise of organizing, administering and ameliorating the condition of the trust ultimately culminated in the impugned judgment dated 18.12.2019.

3. These appeals arise out of the dispute of a huge charitable endowment which are a combination of the dedications of an eminent personality preserved in the cultural history of this State-Late Pachaiyappa Mudaliar [1754-1794 A.D.] who is considered to be a synonym for a philanthropist, of the historical background and the legal status of a charitable trust that evolved around his name and material wealth that was left behind by him, of the legal battles that led to the formation and unrolling of a unique organization in the shape of a trust accomplished in about two and half centuries, of the mystery that is sought to be resolved of a casus incogitatus [a situation un-thought of by the author of a legal instrument] arising out of a Will said to have been transcribed at Kumbakonam on 22.3.1794 by Pachaiyappa, and the ultimate culmination of a dispute of holding elections and modification in the scheme of the trust by the learned Single Judge, explaining as to how a ship's journey can be possibly wrecked by the mutiny of its sailors.

4. The appellants before us have raised an united challenge to the impugned judgment dated 18.12.2019 claiming themselves to be the Board of Trustees and beneficiaries of the property of the trust, lamenting and criticizing the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge of a disproportionate assessment of facts that touches perversity, being incoherent and incongruous in its findings while trying to find a solution, and reflecting a betrayal to procedural law and a profound ignorance of the law of trusts.

5. While, on the other hand, the respondent applicants have raised a variety of objections to the very maintainability of the appeals, but have substantially advanced submissions supporting the real cause for intervention, for informing this Court of the gross irregularities and illegalities resulting in mismanagement of the trust and for suitably modifying the scheme to the advantage, and only advantage of the trust and its properties, that has been secured for centuries for one and only purpose, namely, public charity.

6. On the one hand, the appellants have cannoned legal arguments to demolish the foundations of the very cause that has been set up, as being preferred on ulterior and mala-fide motives for scrapping the age-old and tested system of governance of the trust for no valid reason, and have raised hair-splitting arguments relating to the legality, rather un-sustainability of the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in proceeding to interfere and modify the scheme, which according to the appellants, was totally in digression to the initial plea of the restraining of holding of elections that later on got converted to a full scale litigation with regard to the management of the trust. It is also their contention that the issue relating to the holding of the elections or otherwise that was moving on with the aid of the initial orders passed by the learned Single Judges on various occasions, took a t