JUDGMENT :-

(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 13.06.2011 made in I.A.No.185 of 2011 in O.S.No.330 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode.)

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner/defendant challenging the order passed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Tiruchengode in I.A.No.185 of 2011 in O.S.No.330 of 2004 dated 13.06.2011, in and by which, the learned Additional District Munsif has dismissed the Interlocutory Application filed by the petitioner under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) and Section 151 of C.P.C, praying to pass an order to withdraw the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the matter of the suit.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials placed before this Court. None appeared on behalf of the respondents 1 to 6 & 8 to 12.

3. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit O.S.No.330 of 2004 who filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from in any way trespassing into or otherwise disturbing her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The respondents 1 to 9 herein are the defendants 1 to 9 in the said suit. The respondents 1 to 8/defendants 1 to 8 have claimed that they have purchased a property from the 9th respondent/9th defendant. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 8/defendants 1 to 8 have impleaded the 9th respondent/9th defendant as a party to the suit vide order in I.A.No.893 of 2008 dated 08.09.2009. The respondents 1 to 8/defendants 1 to 8 have filed the written statement, but, they have not given any particulars of the sale deed i.e., date of sale and consideration passed in the said sale deed and also not produced any documents along with written statement to prove their claim. The 9th respondent/9th defendant has also filed a detailed written statement, but, so far, her written statement was not recorded by the trial Court. The 9th respondent/9th defendant has also not given any particulars of sale deed executed by her in favour of the respondents 1 to 8/defendants 1 to 8. Further, in her written statement, the 9th respondent/9th defendant has stated that she has sold some of the properties involved in the suit for the benefit of the suit Trust and the said sales were effected both for necessity and benefit of the Trust. The written statement was served on the petitioner/plaintiff in the month of November 2010 and the petitioner/plaintiff was making attempts to verify the records through Sub Registry, Komarapalayam to get correct particulars with respect to the sale deed executed by the 9th respondent/9th defendant in favour of the respondents 1 to 8/defendants 1 to 8.

4. The case of the petitioner/plaintiff is that the 9th respondent/9th defendant has no locus standi to execute the sale deed of the Trust property in favour of the respondents 1 to 8/defendants 1 to 8 since the property is a trust property and therefore, the same cannot be sold without the permission of the Court. The 9th respondent/9th defendant has no manner of right, title and interest over the Trust property and its administration and its property. There are also previous proceedings from between the petitioner/plaintiff and the 9th respondent/9th defendant, in which, the sale deed executed by the 9th respondent/9th defendant with respect to the Trust property at Chennai is declared as null and void. Hence, the 9th respondent/9th defendant is not entitled to represent as Managing Trustee of the petitioner/plaintiff Trust. Moreover, neither the respondents 1 to 8/defendants 1 to 8 nor the 9th respondent/9th defendant has given any correct particulars of the sale deed in the written statement filed by them. The petitioner/plaintiff was advised to take steps to set-aside the sale-deed as null and void since the 9th respondent/9th defendant has no locus st