R G ANUSUYA Vs. S VIGNESHWARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Court heard the submissions made by Mr. K. S. Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

(2.) As against the concurrent judgments of both the Courts below, the defendants 3 to 5 in the original suit have brought forth this second appeal.

(3.) The suit was instituted on behalf of the plaintiff trust, namely madurai Arumugam Chettiar Annadana Trust represented by its trustees, 6 in number, based on the alleged termination of lease in respect of the suit property by the issue of a notice under Sec.106 of the Transfer of Property act, 1882, praying for the recovery of possession, recovery of arrears of rent till the date of termination of lease and for damages for use and occupation thereafter. Though the trustees have been inaccurately referred to as plaintiffs in plural, in fact, it was the suit by a single juristic person, namely Arumugam chettiar Annadana Public Trust through its trustees, totally 6 in number. Thereafter, consequent to the death of one of the trustees, namely Venkatachalam chettiar during the pendency of the suit, his wife Packiya Lakshmi was impleaded as the seventh trustee. During the pendency of the appeal before the lower appellate Court, the said Packiya Lakshmi and P. Mahalingam Chettiar, the first trustee of the plaintiff trust passed away. Consequently their legal representatives Somasundaram, Mohanram, Dhanapal and Vigneshwaran were added as parties to the appeal. In fact, the appeal before the lower appellate Court had been preferred by the defendants in the suit describing the original trustees and the legal representatives of such trustees who died during the pendency of the suit/appeal suit inappropriately as respondents. However, the fact remains that the plaintiff trust continued to be the sole respondent represented by the trustees and the legal representatives of the deceased trustees in the appeal also. Originally R. B. Gurunathan was the sole defendant against whom the suit was filed. As he died during the pendency of the suit, his wife and children were impleaded as defendants 2 to 5. Subsequently R. G. Dhanalakshmi, wife of r. B. Gurunathan arrayed as the second defendant also died and and the suit was contested by the surviving defendants, namely defendants 3 to 5.