(1.) A.S.No.8 of 2005 filed against the decree and judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai, dismissing the suit in O.S.No.116 of 2003 filed by the Plaintiff for removing the first Defendant from the post of trusteeship of the suit property as per will dtd. 30/3/1958 and appointing the Plaintiffs as Trustees or appointing new trustees and also for framing scheme for proper administration of the suit property and its trust by the Plaintiffs. Similarly A.S.No.9 of 2005 filed against the decree and judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai dismissing the suit in O. S.No.117 of 2003 filed for permanent injunction against the defendants 1 to 3 from in any manner entering the suit property by way of mortgage, long term lease and sale to the 4th defendant or to any other person and making any structural alteration of the building.
(2.) Both the suits were tried jointly by the trial court. Trial Court dismissed both the suits on the ground that the Trust is the private trust and no scheme is required. As against which two appeal suits were filed in A.S.No.8 and 9 of 2005 respectively. First Appellate court in A.S.No.8 of 2005 filed against the comprehensive suit for framing scheme has held that the suit properties are public purpose. Having held no scheme is required since the first defendant was administering the trust property. In injunction suit, restraining the defendants from leasing the property for more than three years after 26/1/2025, against which the present Second Appeals are filed.
(3.) S.A.No.1257 of 2008 filed by the Plaintiffs against the dismissal of comprehensive suit and confirmed in the first appeal. S.A.No.1258 of 2008 also filed by the Plaintiffs against the dismissal of the injunction suit and the same was reversed in the first appeal.