R SELVAM Vs. N VASUDEVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant / first defendant challenging the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.120 of 2011, whereby and whereunder the first appellate Court, after setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court, remanded the suit for marking additional documents.

(2.) The respondents 1 to 3 herein as plaintiffs had filed the suit in O.S.No.234 of 2006 for the relief of declaration declaring that the plaintiffs and their male descendants alone should perform the Kattalais as trustees of the trust founded by Narayana Chettiar and for injunction restraining the first defendant / appellant herein from interfering with the management of the trust.

(3.) The case of the plaintiffs / respondents 1 to 3 is that the suit property originally belonged to the forefathers of the plaintiffs and first defendant, by name Narayanan Chettiyar, who had no male issue but had only four daughters. He had settled the suit property by way of settlement deed dated 20.01935 (EX.A1) in favour of his brother's son by name Kumarasamy Chettiyar for doing some "dharmams" during the visit of "Pundari Katcha Perumal" to Kollidam. Kumarasamy had two sons by name Thiruvengadam and Narayanan and a daughter by name Saroja. On 25.05.1976 Kumarasamy executed a registered Will mandating that his two sons and their male heirs could perform "dharmams" in annual terms. In the year 1977, the said Kumarasamy died. Then, the said Narayanan died on 11.09.2000 leaving the plaintiffs and his two daughters as his heirs. In April, 2001, the plaintiffs performed the "dharmams". Thereafter, the said Thiruvengadam died on 28.10.2001 leaving the first defendant alone as his heir. As the first defendant is female, as per the Will dated 25.05.1976, the first defendant has no right to perform "dharmams" by collecting rent from the tenants in the suit properties. But, the first defendant has been collecting the rents from some of the tenants viz., defendants 3 to 7 in the suit properties and also objecting the plaintiffs' performance. The 2nd defendant temple directed the parties to get a Court order. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit. Since the defendants 3 to 7 supported the first defendant by paying rents, they were also impleaded as parties in the suit.