JUDGMENT :

PRAYER:- Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, praying to set aside the judgement and decree of the District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputtur in A.S.No.13 of 2001 dated 31.07.2002 confirming the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputtur in O.S.No.164 of 1999 dated 19.10.2001.

The defendants in the suit are the appellants. The respondent herein filed a suit seeking direction to the appellants 1 to 3 herein to hand over possession of the suit property to respondent and also to render true accounts. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants filed an appeal and the same was dismissed by the First Appellate Court. Hence, the appellants are before this Court.

2. According to the respondent, the suit property was purchased by the previous pontiff of the respondent mutt for the benefit of mutt out of mutt funds. Even during reign of previous pontiff in order to perform certain religious services to Sri Periyahvar during Brahmotsavam in the Tamil Month of Ani, a sum of Rs.10,000/- was deposited by mutt in bank of Tanjore at Srivilliputtur vide Receipt No.149381 dated 09.01.1975 with specific direction to appellants to draw the interest and perform religious services as decided by the previous pontiff. He also executed a document dated 30.12.1974 under Ex.B1 by directing the appellants to perform religious charity out of interest income derived from fixed deposit made by him. The appellants were appointed as hereditary trustees of the religious endowments. It was also recited in the document that all religious activities mentioned therein for which the endowment was created should be performed in the suit property which belonged to the respondent mutt. It was also averred that the appellants failed to perform, the religious services as directed by Ex.B1 document and hence, after issuing pre-suit notice, the respondent was constrained to file a suit for aforesaid relief.

3. The appellants herein filed a written statement and resisted the suit on the ground that under document dated 30.12.1974 previous trustee created a trust by dedicating the suit property to the trust and appointed the appellants as hereditary trustees. It was also stated by the appellants that the respondent is not entitled to revoke the trust and seek possession of the suit property. It was also stated by the appellants in the written statement that the property was purchased by the previous pontiff in his individual capacity and the property had never acquired the character of mutt property. The appellants also claimed that they were performing religious endowments as per the directions in the document creating trust.

4. The Trial Court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record came to the conclusion that the suit property belonged to the respondent mutt and the appellants herein failed to perform their obligation as per directions in Ex.B1 and consequently, decreed the suit for possession and rendition of accounts as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants preferred first appeal in A.S.No.13 of 2001 on the file of the Additional District Court-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal by confirming the findings of the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants are before this Court.

5. At the time of admission, this Court formulated the following substantial question of law:-

“1. Whether the findings of the Courts below that the purchase of the property under Ex.A1 was for the plaintiff's Mutt is erroneous?

2. The Courts below having held that Ex.B1, Deed of Trust has been executed by the person who purchased the property under Ex.A1 and that the Trust has been validly created, are right in holding that the execution of Ex.B1 Trust is not valid?

3. The lower Appellate Court having held that the property cannot be treated as Trust