Adverse possession cannot be claimed against trust properties, and trustees are liable for proper management and maintenance of trust accounts.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the Judgment and Decree of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge of Madurai dated 18.10.1994 made in O.S.No.97 of 1983.)

1. This Appeal has been filed to set aside the Judgment and Decree, dated 18.10.1994 in O.S.No.97 of 1983 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai.

2. The brief facts of the plaint are as follows:-

The plaintiffs belong to the Vainagaram family groups. The item No. 1 of the suit schedule property was purchased by the 4th plaintiff through a registered sale deeds dated 20.04.1882 and 19.06.1884 by his own income. The said building was used for worship of 63Nayanmars by placing their photos and worshiped by the family members for their welfare and they have also done poojas for their ancestors and conducted poojas for their annual ceremony. Hence, the said building was called as 'Arubathumoovar madam'. Afterwards, on 10.11.1890 and 18.06.1894 the item Nos.2 & 3 of the suit schedule properties were purchased for conducting the aforesaid poojas. The said buildings were purchased in the name of the defendants to honour their Sambandhies. The defendants have also interested in doing poojas and other religious activities. The 4th schedule property was also purchased by the defendants. The 5th schedule property was taken by the Government under the Inam Abolition Act and compensation was also paid to them. All the suit schedule properties exclusively belonged to Arubathumoovar madam and they were maintained by the plaintiffs. The defendants have also helped the plaintiffs in the said activities. Since the family members of the defendants tried to defeat the purpose for which the madam was established, the plaintiffs handed over the management to one Arunachalam Chettiar on 19.10.1927 temporarily and the plaintiffs helped him in doing the same. Thereafter, the defendants failed to accompany the plaintiffs and their family members in the activities of Arubathumoovar madam. The defendants tried to stop the plaintiffs from doing the aforesaid things and saying that they have relinquished their rights in the said madam. The suit schedule properties exclusively granted to the family of plaintiffs and Vainagaram family. They are the descendents of the ancestors of the said madam. The suit schedule properties were not purchasable and relinquishable. Hence, they are not salable and will not bind on the legal heirs if any such sale is made. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiffs for a direction to the defendants to hand over the records and accounts of suit item Nos.1 to 4 and the management of the trust and to remove the defendants from the said trust and hand over the fund belongs to trust, if any and to frame a scheme decree regarding the management of family trust with the income from item Nos.5 of the suit schedule property.

3.The brief facts of the written statement filed by the defendant Nos.1 & 2 are as follows:-

Though the plaintiffs have purported to file the suit on behalf of all the members of Vainagaram family, they have not laid the suit in conformity with the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code and on the said ground itself,the suit has to be rejected in limini. From the plaint, it is clear that for the past several decades, the members of these defendants' family alone have been functioning as Trustees for the plaint mentioned trust hereditarily and to the knowledge of these defendants, the plaintiffs or their predecessors have not functioned as Trustees. In the said circumstances, the plaintiffs ought to have filed the suit for recovery of possession and valued the suit under Section 30 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. It is clearly seen from the available records that the father of the 2nd defendant had been functioning as the sole trustee of the plaint mentioned Trust even in the year 1926. As per order made in I.A.No.36 of 1984, the pla