IMPORTANT POINT
The authority of a trustee to file a suit, completion of a gift deed, and the issue of limitation are crucial factors in determining the success of a property dispute.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Thiruvallur at Poonamalle in A.S. No.8 of 2012 dated 21.07.2015 who reversed the Judgment and decree of the learned Sub Court, Poonamallee in O.S. No.113 of 2006 dated 15.11.2011.)

1. The plaintiff, in a suit for declaration and recovery of possession of the suit property, having initially succeeded before the trial Court and on Appeal having lost before the First Appellate Court, is the appellant herein.

2. The parties are described as per their litigative status before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiff, claiming to be the founder trustee of the trust viz., ‘Friends for the Needy (FN)’, stated that the trust is a Registered Public Charitable Trust and the suit property belonged to the Trust, having become entitled to the same by way of gift from one Mr.Lalchand. According to the plaintiff, the trust is running a Centre for rehabilitation for mentally retarded persons. The plaintiff also states that there was an agreement of sale by the original owner of the property in favour of two third parties and the said agreement holders had divided the suit property into two. However, the plaintiff approached the Collector of Tiruvallur to get the agreement holders evicted and in the meantime, the defendant taking advantage of property being vacant on the front side, trespassed into the same. On coming to know that the defendant had filed a suit against one Ramesh and obtained an exparte order of interim injunction, the plaintiff filed an impleading application which was closed on 12.10.2004. As the defendant did not vacate, the suit has been instituted for declaration and recovery of possession.

4. The defendant filed a written statement seeking dismissal of the suit on the following grounds:

(i) The plaintiff had suppressed material facts.

(ii) The plaintiff had not valued suit claim properly.

(iii) The Trust is not before the Court and the plaintiff has no authority to file the suit.

(iv) Defendant has perfected title by adverse possession, being in possession for more than three decades.

(v) It is incorrect to state that the impleading application was closed.

5. The trial Court decreed the suit, finding that defendant is a trespasser and the plaintiff had got valid title under Ex.A2, gift deed from one, Lalchand. The defendant preferred an Appeal in A.S. No.8 of 2012 and the First Appellate Court, dismissed the suit holding that the gift deed in Ex.A2, had not been established and moreover, the plaintiff did not have the authority to file the suit and the First Appellate Court proceeded to dismiss the suit, allowing the Appeal of the defendant.

6. I have heard Mr.R.Prabakaran, learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant and Mr.P.Valliappan, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.B.Vijay, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant. I have also independently gone through the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence as well as the judgments of the Courts below.

7. On 18.10.2023, the above Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:-

'Whether the judgment of the First Appellate Court is justified in law in negativing the prayer for declaration made by the appellant when the agreement of sale relied on by the respondent will not create any interest in the suit property?'

8. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff would submit that the plaintiff has been working for social cause and in representative capacity, the suit had been filed and drawing a parallel to a temple, the learned counsel for the appellant would state that the plaintiff as founder Trustee, was well within her rights to represent the Trust and file a suit. He would also state that the defendant was only a trespasser, having even lost his rights to performance under the alleged agreement of sale in Ex.B1 and he would also contend that the trial Court had also rightly found that the ple