ORDER :

(Prayer in A.No.6433/2019: To reject the plaint in C.S.No.138 of 2019 filed by the plaintiffs as a clear abuse of process and does not disclose any cause of action.

Prayer in C.S.No.138 of 2019:

(1) Declare that the 1st defendant is not a lawfully inducted trustee of the plaintiff trust. (1A) declare the Co-option of the 2nd defendant by 1st defendant as a trustee of the plaintiff Trust on 07.12.2015 is not true, valid and is void and unlawful and that she is therefore not a trustee of the plaintiff trust. (1B) Permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from in any manner interfering with the administration or functioning of the plaintiff trust; (2) Declare that the lease deed dated 15.04.2016 executed by the 3rd defendant representing the Plaintiff Trust in favour of the 1st defendant is unlawful, illegal, invalid, void and not binding on the Plaintiff Trust; (2A) Directing the defendant No.1 to handover peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff trust.

Prayer in O.A.No.156 of 2019:

To pass an order of ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants 1 to 3 their men, agents, servants and anyone claiming under or through them from in any manner demolishing or altering any portion of the suit property morefully described in the schedule mentioned property pending disposal of the suit.)

The applicant in A.No.6433 of 2019 is the 1st defendant in the suit. The 1st respondent herein is the plaintiff.

2. The Suit has been filed for the following reliefs:

1. Declare that the 1st defendant is not a lawfully inducted trustee of the plaintiff trust.

1A. Declare the co-option of the 2nd defendant by 1st defendant as a trustee of the plaintiff Trust on 07.12.2015 is not true, valid and is void and unlawful and that she is therefore, not a trustee of the plaintiff trust.

1B. Permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from in any manner interfering with the administration or functioning of the plaintiff trust;

2. Declare that the lease deed dated 15.04.2016 executed by the 3rd defendant representing the Plaintiff Trust in favour of the 1st defendant is unlawful, illegal, invalid, void and not binding on the Plaintiff Trust;

2A. Directing the defendant No.1 to handover peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff trust.

3. The facts and circumstances which gave rise to the filing of the present application are stated hereunder.

(a) The plaintiff is the Charitable Trust which has been created by virtue of the Trust Deed dated 29.03.1972. The deed was executed by one Raja Sir M.A.Muthiah Chettiar. According to the stipulation in the Trust Deed, the suit property which belonged to the founder Trustee, Raja Sir M.A.Muthiah Chettiar, shall vest in the plaintiff trust and shall be utilised for the charitable purposes in terms of the objects of the Trust. The Trust Deed enumerated various charitable objects like establishing, maintaining educational, technical or technological Institutions of all kinds in India, establishing hospitals, dispensaries, maintaining the houses of orphan or supporting and educating students and destitute children in India etc.

(b) Subsequent to the founding of the Trust, Dr.Raja Sir M.A.Muthiah Chettiar, co-opted his own son, Dr.M.A.M.Ramasamy, as the co-trustee of the trust on 07.04.1984. Immediately after the co-option of his son, Dr.Raja Sir M.A.Muthiah Chettiar died on 12.05.1984. According to the plaintiff, the surviving trustee Dr.M.A.M.Ramasamy, co-opted his cousin Dr.A.C.Muthiah, grand son of the founder Trustee late Dr.Raja Sir M.A.Muthiah Chettiar, as another trustee on 30.09.1991. It further transpired that the said Dr.M.A.M.Ramasamy appeared to have unilaterally co-opted the applicant herein, the 1st defendant in the suit, as one of the Trustees of Plaintiff Trust in terms of letter dated 30.04.2004.

(c) According to Dr.A.C.Muthiah, who claims himself to be the sole trustee of the plaintiff trust as on date, the applicant/1st d