Trust properties cannot be alienated by trustees; a plaintiff can seek injunction without declaratory relief if the properties are prohibited from alienation.

JUDGMENT

The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.15 of 2015 dated 27.08.2019 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Uthamapalayam, reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.280 of 2010 dated 21.04.2015 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Uthamapalayam.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff and he filed the suit in O.S.No.280 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Uthamapalayam claiming permanent injunction restraining the respondents / defendants from in any manner alienating or encumbering the suit properties.

3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as per their status / ranking in the trial Court.

4. The case of the plaintiff, in short, is as follows:

(a) The suit properties are belonging to Arulmighu Bhagavati Amman Temple, Chinnamannur, Uthamapalayam Taluk and are Trust properties. Several cases were filed with regard to temple Trust issues and the suit in O.S.No.74 of 2007 was pending before the Subordinate Court, Uthamapalayam at the time of filing of the present suit. The defendants 1 and 2 herein were the plaintiffs 3 and 4 in O.S.No.74 of 2007 and the defendants 3 to 5 and the plaintiff herein were the defendants 3, 4, 6 and 9. Founders of the Trust had intended that the suit properties should not be alienated. In the partition deed entered into between the plaintiff, his father and brothers on 04.09.1955, it was specifically recited that the suit properties should not be alienated but the defendants, by colluding themselves, attempted to alienate and encumber the suit properties. The plaintiff being a Trustee or in his individual capacity is duty bound to protect the suit properties. The defendants have absolutely no right to alienate or encumber the suit properties. If the suit properties are sold, then the temple rituals cannot be conducted as wished by their ancestors.

(b) The third defendant, by showing the first schedule of the suit properties as his ancestral property, sold it to the first defendant on 03.09.2010 and on that date itself, the third defendant had executed a registered power of attorney deed in favour of Ramakrishnan, S/o.Appadurai. Though the said documents are legally invalid, the first defendant is attempting to alienate the suit properties to third parties. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file the above suit for permanent injunction.

5. The defence of the defendants, in short, is as follows:

(a) The suit properties are Trust properties relating to Arulmighu Bhagavati Amman temple. It was founded by Periyasamy Pillai and Karuppana Pillai @ Vellaiya Pillai during 20^th century and the Temple and its properties were under the joint management of the said founders and subsequently, by their legal heirs. The Trust was administered by the legal heirs of founder Periyasamy Pillai, namely, Alaguvel Pillai and his son Raja @ Periyasamy Pillai and the legal heirs of U.V.Kanthasamy Pillai, Sudhadhara Pandiyan, S/o.Ramasamy Pillai and grandson of U.V.Kanthasamy Pillai and sons of U.V.K.Alagappa Pillai, namely, U.A.Kanthasamy (father of the defendants 3 to 5), U.A.Subramania Pillai, U.A.Velusamy Pillai (father of the first defendant) and Ramanatha Pillai (plaintiff) jointly.

(b) As per the partition deed dated 04.09.1955, the properties were allotted to the legal heirs of Periyasamy Pillai and Karuppana Pillai. After the death of Alagappa Pillai, the first defenda