J U D G M E N T

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order passed in I.A.No.48 of 2021 in O.S.No.213 of 2021, dated 01.10.2021 on the file of the Additional District Court/Fast Track Mahila Court, Dindigul, granting temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2.The appellants/petitioners are the respondents/defendants and the respondents/respondents are the petitioners/plaintiffs in I.A.No.48 of 2021 in O.S.No.213 of 2021 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Dindigul.

3.The first respondent, as the managing trustee and the respondents 2 and 3, as trustees of Victory Educational Trust, have filed the above suit against the petitioners/appellants, claiming the following reliefs :

(a) directing the defendants 4 and 6 to pay compensation of Rs.11,00,000/-for causing defamation to the plaintiffs ;

(b) declaration that as per resolution, dated 25.06.2021 passed in the Victory Educational Trust, the first plaintiff is the managing trustee of the Victory Educational Trust;

(c) consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from in any way causing disturbance or interference to the functioning of first plaintiff as the managing trustee of the Victory Educational Trust;

(d) declaration that the supplementary trust deed, registered as document No.9 of 2021, dated 14.06.2021, before the Sub-Registrar Office, Periyakulam, is legally invalid.

4. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties hereinafter will be referred as per their ranking / status in the original suit.

5. Admittedly, the fifth defendant is the wife, the defendants 1 and

2 are the daughters and the defendants 3 and 4 are the sons of the deceased Vadivel and that the sixth defendant is the wife of the fourth defendant.

6. According to the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff is the second wife and the second plaintiff is the daughter of the deceased Vadivel. Admittedly, the third plaintiff is the daughter of the first plaintiff through her first husband. No doubt, the defendants have disputed the status of the first plaintiff as the second wife of the deceased Vadivel.

7. The plaintiffs' case is that the first plaintiff's father-in-law Murugan @ Martin Murugan and his second son M.Soundararajan founded Vadivel Educational Trust on 19.08.1988; that the first plaintiff along with her father-in-law Murugan, had founded Victory Educational Trust on 19.04.1991 and that since both the trusts had similar objectives, were merged into a single trust by name Victory Educational Trust vide deed of transfer, dated 09.04.1999.

8. It is their further case that the said Vadivel became Managing Trustee and the first plaintiff as Secretary of the said Trust on 14.05.1999; that the plaintiffs 2 and 3 and the defendants 1 and 2 were inducted as trustees; that the said Vadivel had died on 14.05.2021 and that the first plaintiff, who was the then Secretary of the trust, was made the Managing trustee vide resolution, dated 25.06.2021.

9. It is their further case that the defendants created a resolution dated 09.06.2021 removing the plaintiffs from trusteeship and nominating the fourth defendant as managing trustee; that the above resolution was filed and got registered before the Sub Registrar Office, Periyakulam, though the trust is situated in the jurisdiction of Vadamadurai, Dindigul District, that the plaintiffs came to know about the illegal resolution removing them from trusteeship, from the notice received on 28.06.2021 and that therefore, they were constrained to file the present suit.

10. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that the defendants 3 to 6 have no connection whatever with the Victory Educational Trust and that at the instigation of the defendants 4 and 6, the defendants have been interfering with the management of the trust; that the defendants 4 and 6 by using their influence as advocates, have been attempting to grab the trust and its properties; that the writ petitions filed by the fourth d