Judgment :- The unsuccessful defendants in the suit are the appellants. 2. The case in brief is as follows:- The plaintiff filed a suit for declaring the title of the plaintiff to the suit schools both at Dharmapuri and Palacode and a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from collecting school fees, special fees, donation, etc., from the public and prospective students in the name of the School or otherwise, and using the plaintiff's name 'Seventh Day Adventist'. Seventh Day Adventists (hereinafter referred to as 'SDA School) is a Christian Sect differentiated from all other Sects by strict observance of some tenets and practices. The apex of the organisation is known as General conference, located at Washington D.C. in the United States of America/ For administrative purpose, the entire world is geographically divided into 13 divisions. The plaintiff belongs to Southern Asia Division. This Division is comprised of 8 Unions, consisting of Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Burma, Bangladesh, Central India, South India, North India and North East India. South India is again divided into 5 sections, one of which is North Tamil Section consisting of the SDA having its headquarters at No.20/2, Williams Road, Trichy. The plaintiff organisation is a democratic one having election at every level from the last unit of the section upwards to General Conference once in four years. They are running Schools, Colleges, Hospitals, Orphanages, Health Centres, etc. Dharmapuri District is under the plaintiff's section. In the year 1977, the 1st defendant, who was initially employed by the plaintiff at Tiruppur, was posted at Dharmapuri area as Pastor to preach the Gospel for the SDA. Thereafter by a resolution of the Executive Committee of the plaintiff dated 22.04.1977, the 1st defendant was authorised and directed to start school at Dharmapuri among other places along with the 2nd defendant, who was appointed by the plaintiff as Headmistress. The 1st defendant was provided with necessary funds, given proper guidance and instructions. The salary of the defendants was also fixed by the plaintiff. In course of the years, the School has grown up and presently has a strength of over 1300 students in 4 locations in the Dharmapuri Town alone and one in Palacode employing over 57 teachers. The defendants are managing the Church and the Schools for and on behalf of the plaintiff and nothing more. In course of the years, the School has grown up and presently has a strength of over 1300 students in 4 locations in the Dharmapuri Town alone and one in Palacode employing over 57 teachers. The defendants are managing the Church and the Schools for and on behalf of the plaintiff and nothing more. The administration and financial control of the school is held by the plaintiff through the 1st defendant. Initially the 1st defendant was designated as Manager of the School and then as Principal although he has only SSLC qualification. The bank account is in the name of the SDA school with Indian Bank, Dharmapuri jointly operated by the treasurer of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. The schools are run in sheds/structures put up in plots taken on long lease by the organisation. The 1st defendant was even given Scooter Allowance from July 1980 as per the resolution. Those who pass out from this school are eligible to join the school of SDA at Trichy or elsewhere affiliated to I.S.C. As a matter of fact, the transfer certificates to the students are issued only by SDA at Trichy. The appointment of teachers, their salaries, disciplinary action against them, contributions to provident fund, retirement contribution, transfers and student fees, all proceed from the North Tamil Section. No individual has got any right or interest over the same. Executive Committee Meetings are held at Trichy. Under a resolution, the defendants were transferred from Dharmapuri to Gudiyatham Church and School. The 1st defendant was to function as Pastor and Principal and the 2nd defendant as Headmistress of the School. In the place of the 1st defendant, one Mr.Solomon, who had been serving at Madras, was posted. When the said Solomon came to Dharmapuri accompanied by the Pastor Thavamani to take charge from the 1st defendant, he was not available for more than three days. On 10.02.1985, the 1st defendant appeared before the President at Trichy and requested time till 20th February to hand over charge and accordingly, he was granted time. Instead of carrying out the orders, the defendants started on a war path and on 15.02.1985 the 1st defendant wrote back to the plaintiff claiming title to the school itself. The 1st defendant claims that he has started the schools in his individual capacity and he has refused to hand over charge. Instead of carrying out the orders, the defendants started on a war path and on 15.02.1985 the 1st defendant wrote back to the plaintiff claiming title to the school itself. The 1st defendant claims that he has started the schools in his individual capacity and he has refused to hand over charge. He had also tendered resignation from the post of Pastor. Consequently, on 28.02.1985, both the defendants were kept under suspension by the Executive Committee. Apprehending that the plaintiff would initiate criminal and civil action, the defendants have filed a suit in O.S.No. 91 of 1985 on the file of District Munsif Court, Dharmapuri for declaration and injunction. Written statement was also filed in the suit. The defendants have also obtained anticipatory bail for an offence under section 408 IPC from the Sessions Court, Krishnagiri. No individual can claim or appropriate the name of SDA except the plaintiff's sect which alone is authorised to run schools. The plaintiff made determined efforts and persuasion to take over the management of the school from the defendants; but they employed Goondas and threatened with dire consequences. The 1st defendant has stopped sending statistical reports of the school to the plaintiff and failed to render accounts for a sum of Rs.90,072.53 as on 31.12.1984. The plaintiff also authorised the 1st defendant for the purchase of a van bearing registration No. TNF 5207. The plaintiff gave a loan and permitted to raise loan from public for the above purchase of a van. The defendants were never in possession and management of the school in the individual capacity. Though the total strength of all the five school comes to 1700, the fees collected from the unaccounted students numbering 400 has been misappropriated. Hence the suit. The defendants filed a detailed written statement denying the various averments made in the plaint. They also denied the right of the plaintiff relating to number of schools and also the administration. The 1st defendant denied that he was originally employed at Thiruppur and was posted as Pastor at Dharmapuri in 1977. He also denied that by a resolution dated 22.04.1977, the 1st defendant was authorised and directed to start a school along with the 2nd defendant. Necessary funds have not been provided by the plaintiff. He was posted to Dharmapuri as Pastor in September 1976. He also denied that by a resolution dated 22.04.1977, the 1st defendant was authorised and directed to start a school along with the 2nd defendant. Necessary funds have not been provided by the plaintiff. He was posted to Dharmapuri as Pastor in September 1976. The 2nd defendant was married to the 1st defendant on 09.06.1977 and thereafter, she moved to Dharmapuri. The defendants had started and established the suit schools on their own accord and with their funds only, and it is their private property. The 2nd defendant became the Headmistress of the School from the beginning. The financial control is not vested with the Executive Committee of the plaintiff's organisation. The bank account is in the joint name of the school as well as the treasurer for reasons stated in the written statement. The schools established by the defendants have grown in strength and enrollment of students and because of the same, the plaintiff wanted to grab the same from them and for that purpose it appears to have unilaterally assumed certain functions and powers and on that basis, had tried to send away the defendants from Dharmapuri on the pretext of a transfer to Gudiyatham. The plaintiff had no power to transfer the 1st defendant and as he was unable to move out to Dharmapuri, he has tendered his resignation as Pastor. It is not correct to state that their salaries were fixed by the plaintiff and proceeds from the Head Office. The defendants have started an English Medium School on 01.07.1977 in Narasimhachari Road, Dharmapuri. Subsequently, they shifted the school at No.13, Venkatarama Sarma Road, Dharmapuri and they have also opened the other branches including the one at Palacode. They had spent more than Rs.2,000/= for starting the schools for advertisement, stationery, furniture, etc., from their own funds. The 2nd defendant had even sold her 'Thali' chain for meeting the expenses of the schools and they are running the schools in rented buildings and the lease deeds were also taken in the name of the 1st defendant. Thus, all the schools were started and established only with the efforts and funds of the defendants and not that of the plaintiff. Just because the religion's name of SDA is prefixed to the name of the suit schools, that does not make them to be the property of the plaintiff. Thus, all the schools were started and established only with the efforts and funds of the defendants and not that of the plaintiff. Just because the religion's name of SDA is prefixed to the name of the suit schools, that does not make them to be the property of the plaintiff. It is difficult to get recognition for the schools from the Government authorities and the plaintiff suggested that the defendants can make the suit schools as 'Participating institution' with the "Council of SDA Educational Institutions" which is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The said Council gives assistance and aid to the Educational Institutions. It also provides professional, technical and financial assistance and guidance to participating institutions. To become a participating institution, the recommendation of the plaintiff organisation which is purely the Church Organisation was necessary. Only for this purpose and in order to maintain certain uniform standards and maintain uniform accounts, the plaintiff suggested and insisted in 1979 that the defendants should submit periodical accounts and the bank account should be transacted jointly with the Treasurer of the plaintiff to have some control. To maintain standards and to get the benefit of getting transfer certificates from the Trichy School, the defendants continue to submit accounts, statistical returns, etc., to the plaintiff organisation. The 1st defendant is not bound to hand over charge to Mr.Solomon and he is perfectly justified in asserting proprietary interest in the schools. As the plaintiff had sent number of power people to Dharmapuri to take over the suit schools forcibly, the defendants have filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. It is not true that the plaintiff appoint teachers and control their salaries, discipline, etc,. The defendants are not paid servants of the plaintiff. It is false to say that the name of SDA belong to the plaintiff's sect exclusively and that no individual can claim or appropriate it. No individual is barred from using his religion or sectarian name to any of the institutions. The plaintiff is wrongfully claiming title to the suit schools. The defendants are not liable to render account for any amount much less Rs.90,000/= and odd. The plaintiff never authorised to purchase the van bearing registration No.TNF 5207. No authorisation was necessary. The plaintiff gave loan of Rs.5000/= to the defendants to purchase the van and it was also repaid. The plaintiff is wrongfully claiming title to the suit schools. The defendants are not liable to render account for any amount much less Rs.90,000/= and odd. The plaintiff never authorised to purchase the van bearing registration No.TNF 5207. No authorisation was necessary. The plaintiff gave loan of Rs.5000/= to the defendants to purchase the van and it was also repaid. In any event, they are entitled to change the name of the suit schools if need be, as the present name is not a registered one. Not even a single rupee was contributed by the plaintiff for starting the suit schools. The plaintiff is not entitled to claim any relief. The plaintiff's claim is highly vexatious and is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. The trial court framed 3 issues and 2 additional issues and on behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-67 were marked and on the side of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-255 were marked. The trial court dismissed the suit and aggrieved against this, the plaintiff preferred A.S.No.122 of 1989 on the file of Sub Court, Dharmapuri and the learned Judge after hearing the parties, allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreed the suit. Aggrieved against this, the defendants have come forward with the present second appeal. 3. At the time of admission of the second appeal, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration: (1) Whether the lower appellate court is correct in placing the burden on the defendants to prove that the school was started with their funds when it is for the plaintiff to establish the same ? (2) Whether the lower appellate court is correct in taking adverse interference for non production of vital documents even though the plaintiff has admitted that they are in possession ? (3) Whether the lower appellate court is correct in coming to the conclusion that the suit schools belonged to the plaintiff contrary to the principles of Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act ? 4. The appellants also filed CMP No.11015 of 2001 under Order 41 Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code for reception of additional documents, namely, pamphlets printed by the appellants as well as by the respondent and to mark the same as additional exhibits. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. The appellants also filed CMP No.11015 of 2001 under Order 41 Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code for reception of additional documents, namely, pamphlets printed by the appellants as well as by the respondent and to mark the same as additional exhibits. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. North Tamil Section of SDA, represented by its Secretary have filed the suit against the defendants for declaring their title to the suit schools described as schedule 1 to 4 in the plaint situated both at Dharmapuri and Palacode and a consequential relief of permanent injunction. There is no dispute that the SDA is a Christian Sect differentiated from all other Sects and the plaintiff belong to Southern Asia Division. South India is divided into 5 Schools and one of which is North Tamil Section consisting of SDA having its headquarters at Williams Road, Trichy. They are running number of schools, colleges, hospitals, orphanages, health centres, etc. According to the plaintiff, Dharmapuri District is coming under the plaintiff's section and in 1977, the 1st defendant was initially employed at Tiruppur was posted to Dharmapuri Area as Pastor to preach the Gospel for the SDA. The Executive Committee of the plaintiff also passed a resolution on 22.04.1977 authorising the 1st defendant to start school at Dharmpuri and he was also provided with necessary funds, proper guidance and instructions. The 2nd defendant is the wife of the 1st defendant and she was employed as a Headmistress. The appointment of the teachers, their salary and entire administration is under the control of the plaintiff and the defendants are their paid employees. The bank account is also in the name of the school with Indian Bank, Dharmapuri which is jointly operated by the 1st defendant as well as Treasurer of the plaintiff. The defendants were also sending periodical statements relating to the school to the office at Trichy. In short, the defendants are only in the pay rolls of the plaintiff and they cannot claim any independent right over the schools. The transfer certificate is also issued only in the name of the Trichy School. The 1st defendant was transferred to Gudiyatham and one Solomon was posted in his place; but the 1st defendant refused to hand over the charge and began to claim right in his individual capacity. The transfer certificate is also issued only in the name of the Trichy School. The 1st defendant was transferred to Gudiyatham and one Solomon was posted in his place; but the 1st defendant refused to hand over the charge and began to claim right in his individual capacity. The defendants were kept under suspension by the Executive Committee and apprehending trouble from the plaintiff, the defendants filed O.S.No.91 of 1985 for declaration and injunction; but ultimately after the filing of the written statement, they withdrew the suit. The defendants also failed to render account for a sum of Rs.90,000/= and odd as on 31.12.1984 to the plaintiff. Now, the defendants have entered into lease arrangement with the owner of the property and are running the school in the same place, whereas the plaintiff had taken some other property on lease and running the school in a different area. 7. The trial court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff, whereas the lower appellate court reversed the finding. The learned counsel for the appellants / defendants mainly contended that the respondent failed to produce the resolution dated 22.04.1977 said to have been passed for starting the suit schools. It also failed to consider the documentary evidence, namely, the purchase bills for stationery and furniture for starting the school which would establish that the defendants alone started the school with their funds. The suit schools are only participating institutions and the plaintiff has nothing to do with them and the burden of proof has been wrongly placed on the appellants to prove that they have established the school. When vital documents available with the plaintiff have not been produced, adverse inference can be drawn against them and a presumption also can be drawn under section 114 of the Evidence Act. 8. The plaintiff organisation claims right over the schools in question. The appellants, on the other hand, claimed that these schools were started out of their own funds and they are their private properties. Schedule of property to the plaint consist of four schools situated in Dharmapuri District. It is admitted that items 1, 3 and 4 of the Schools have been now closed. Item 2 relates to SDA English School running in Dharmapuri Town in the site belonging to one Annamalai of Lakkiampatti. Schedule of property to the plaint consist of four schools situated in Dharmapuri District. It is admitted that items 1, 3 and 4 of the Schools have been now closed. Item 2 relates to SDA English School running in Dharmapuri Town in the site belonging to one Annamalai of Lakkiampatti. The learned counsel for the respondent / plaintiff mainly contended that no private party has any right to start a school in the name of SDA and in fact, the defendants were only employed by the plaintiff and they were in the pay rolls and hence, they cannot claim any independent right over the same. The learned counsel for the appellants, on the other hand, contended that the name SDA can be used by any Christian and accordingly, they have used the same. The plaintiff organisation have not registered the same name in any authority and hence, it was contended that the plaintiff have no prerogative right to get an order of interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the same. But the records filed on behalf of the plaintiff clearly indicated that they are running the school under the name and style of SDA in several parts of the country. Now, the defendants claimed right only in respect of item 2 of the property on the ground that it was started with their own funds and administered only by them. The overwhelming documentary evidence filed on the side of the plaintiff would clearly indicate that the version of the appellants could not be true. There are documentary evidence to show that the defendants were employed under the plaintiff and the appointment of teachers to the school is also done only by the plaintiff. Financial assistance was also made only by the plaintiff to the school in question and in fact, the appellants themselves have addressed the plaintiff organisation seeking earlier appointment of teachers. In fact, the 2nd defendant being the Headmistress of the institution and also the wife of the 1st defendant, addressed the plaintiff organisation to regularise her earlier services for a particular period. But the learned counsel for the appellants contended that the plaintiff alone have come to Court and they have to establish positively that the school was established and administered only by them. But the learned counsel for the appellants contended that the plaintiff alone have come to Court and they have to establish positively that the school was established and administered only by them. No doubt, the resolution dated 22.04.1977 has not been filed into the Court and some of the accounts said to have been maintained by them also have not been filed. It cannot be said that the entire burden is only upon the plaintiff. When the documents filed by the plaintiff prima facie established that they could have given financial assistance and also appointed teachers to the school in question, then the burden of proof would be naturally shifted on the appellants to establish otherwise. Hence, it cannot be said that the entire burden is only upon the plaintiff and the defendants have no role to prove or establish anything. 9. The appellants filed CMP No.11015 of 2002 for reception of additional documents relating to the pamphlets issued by the appellants as well as the respondent separately after the institution of the suit. There was rival claim by the parties and there was also race to win the confidence of the public to admit the students in the school. These pamphlets have been printed and published only after the institution of the suit and, as such, it is possible that each party would try their level best to establish their case by creating evidence and hence, they cannot be considered at this stage. The documents filed prior to the filing of the suit are relevant and sufficient to decide the controversy between the parties. Hence, I am of the view that the additional documents now sought to be introduced by the appellants are only self serving and much weight cannot be attached to the same and they are irrelevant to decide the controversy between the parties. 10. Both parties have filed typed set of documents to establish their case. Ex.A-7 is a letter dated 24.02.1982 written by the 2nd defendant to the plaintiff. It is stated that she was the first lady working in Dharmapuri School as a Teacher from 1977. The service report indicated as if her service commenced from 1980. Hence, she had requested the plaintiff organisation to consider her request from 1977 to 1979. Ex.A-7 is a letter dated 24.02.1982 written by the 2nd defendant to the plaintiff. It is stated that she was the first lady working in Dharmapuri School as a Teacher from 1977. The service report indicated as if her service commenced from 1980. Hence, she had requested the plaintiff organisation to consider her request from 1977 to 1979. Ex.A-8 is another letter sent by the 2nd defendant to the plaintiff dated 22.08.1983, wherein she had sought permission to join B.A.decree course in correspondence. Ex.A-10 is a letter written by SDA English School, Dharmapuri sent to the plaintiff dated 25.04.1983. It is in the letterhead of the School, wherein it was clearly printed as follows: "Annexe of Seventh-day Adventist Higher Secondary School, 43, Heber's Road, Trichy-620001". In this letter, the 1st defendant had sought the transfer of two teachers because of non-cooperation and spoiling the public reputation. Ex.A-11 letter also sent by the 1st defendant in his capacity as Principal of the School to the Treasurer of the plaintiff relating to the teachers' leave travel allowance. Ex.A-13 is another letter dated 04.03.1983 sent by the 1st defendant to the Treasurer about one of the teachers working in the school for fixing the salary. He had sought a clarification from the plaintiff about the correct salary and also provident fund details, etc,. 11. Ex.A-15 letter dated 19.06.1984 is also sent by the 1st defendant to the Educational Superintendent of the plaintiff. He had called upon them to send the candidates immediately to Dharmapuri School for teachers appointment. Ex.A-26 is a letter dated 31.08.1984 sent by the 1st defendant to the Treasurer of the plaintiff alleging that they are suffering from without cheque to take money from Indian Bank because the school cheques are in Trichy office. He has called upon the authorities to send the cheque book to Dharmapuri school with the signature of the treasurer along with the authorisation letter in favour of the Indian Bank Manager, otherwise it will be difficult to take money from the bank. Exs.A-29 and A-30 are the statistical reports sent by the 2nd defendant, which contained all the particulars relating to the students strength, number of teachers, non-teaching staff, etc. It is clearly stated that this school comes under the North Tamil Section. Exs.A-29 and A-30 are the statistical reports sent by the 2nd defendant, which contained all the particulars relating to the students strength, number of teachers, non-teaching staff, etc. It is clearly stated that this school comes under the North Tamil Section. Ex.A-56 is a letter dated 17.02.1982 sent by the 1st defendant to the President of the plaintiff to consider sympathetically the situation and the school problem. The 1st defendant also sought the transfer of one Gunasekaran from Dharmapuri school because he is creating lot of problems to the 1st defendant in Dharmapuri. It is further stated that if he is not transferred, it will affect the school improvement. The aforesaid letters filed on behalf of the plaintiff clearly and clinchingly established that the defendants have been acting only as the employees of the plaintiff. 12. It is seen from Ex.B-6 sent from the Trichy Office to the 1st defendant dated 11.02.1983, wherein the 1st defendant has been directed to come to Trichy along with all the documents consisting lease lands with originals. Ex.B-7 dated 24.01.1983 is also a letter sent by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant, wherein the 1st defendant has been directed to take charge at Tiruppur School on or before 10.02.1983 and he was requested to hand over charge of Dharmapuri Church to Pastor P.Durairaj. Ex.A-3A is a communication sent by the 1st defendant to the Treasurer of the plaintiff that the 1st defendant is getting a salary from the section office only and he did not get the salary in the month of January 1983 and asked the reasons. He has called upon the management to send the January salary along with February month salary also. It is seen from Ex.A-4 dated 30.05.1983 sent to the 1st defendant that the 1st defendant has been permitted to continue in Dharmapuri for one more year to strengthen the church and school. It is seen from Ex.A-34 dated 16.08.1983 sent by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff, wherein he had recommended some of the articles to be secured from Trichy, relating to Science equipments, mathematical instruments, geographical charts, sports goods, duplicator, black board, chairs for teachers, table for higher classes, stools, etc, and in all valued at Rs.43,000/= and odd and also claimed a sum of Rs.2,500/= for van repair charges. These documents are also clearly indicated that the defendants have been approaching the plaintiff for financial assistance on several occasions. When this being the state of affairs, the present contention of the appellants that these schools are their private property cannot be believed by any stretch of imagination. 13. The learned counsel for the appellants next relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 and contended that if it is taken into consideration, the case of the plaintiff has to fail. I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. The schools were started as early as 1977 and P.W.1 was working in Head Office at Trichy and as such, his evidence is naturally based upon the records only. He could not have any personal knowledge relating to various affairs. Simply because the resolution dated 22.04.1977 was not filed in the Court, it cannot be presumed under law that the school was started only by the defendants out of their own funds and also by the 2nd defendant pledging her jewels in the bank. There is no plausible explanation on the part of the appellants relating to number of communications referred to above sent by them to the plaintiff organisation seeking appointment of teachers, financial assistance, clarification, etc,. What was the necessity for sending periodical statements to the plaintiff also has not been properly explained. However, the learned counsel for the appellants would attempt to explain that the institution has been associated as a participating institution with the main school at Trichy and that is why there was necessity to send periodical returns. Admittedly, the transfer certificates of the students studying in the school in question were also issued only by the Trichy School. Even assuming that the school in question became the participating institution with the head of the institution at Trichy, the appointment as well as transfer of teachers could have been done by the defendants, if they have established and administered the institution as their own. But the communications filed in the Court clearly established that the defendants have sought the appointment of teachers from the Trichy office and similarly they have also sought the transfer of some of the teachers to other places. But the communications filed in the Court clearly established that the defendants have sought the appointment of teachers from the Trichy office and similarly they have also sought the transfer of some of the teachers to other places. If the stand of the appellants is accepted that the school in question is their private property, then it is not known how the teachers working under their control can be transferred to some other area. These circumstances would lead to the irresistible conclusion that the defendants have been employed by the plaintiff in different places and ultimately from Tiruppur, the 1st defendant was transferred as Pastor to Dharmapuri District and he was authorised to run the school with the financial assistance of the plaintiff. When the 1st defendant got married the 2nd defendant, she was also made a Headmistress of the School. But now when the 1st defendant was transferred from Dharmapuri District to Gudiyatham as Pastor and one Solomon was appointed in his place, he refused to hand over charge and gained time and ultimately revolted against the institution and made a novel claim that the school itself was started by them. There is absolutely no material on the part of the appellants to come to a conclusion that the school in question was established by them; but on the other hand, the defendants being employees of the plaintiff, have suddenly crossed floor and began to claim right in the school itself taking advantage of their position. 14. The learned counsel for the appellants stated that subsequently the school in question is being run only by the appellants and they have entered into a lease agreement with the owner of the site. On the other hand, the plaintiff had secured some other place in the same area and started another school in the same name and, as such, both of them are running schools in the same district under same name and style. But whatever it is, simply because the appellants were able to get a lease of site from the owner of the property, they cannot take over the entire assets of the school as they were only employees of the plaintiff. Now, the appellants also cannot be allowed to run the school under the name of SDA, competitive to the school run by the plaintiff. Now, the appellants also cannot be allowed to run the school under the name of SDA, competitive to the school run by the plaintiff. It will definitely create confusion in the minds of the parents and ultimately the sufferers are the school children. When the plaintiff organisation have started number of institutions under the same name in different parts of the country, the defendants being individuals cannot be allowed to run the school under the same name so as to deceive the innocent public and ultimately make unjust enrichment. Under the circumstance, I am of the view that the plaintiff organisation have positively established that the schools in question were established only by them and they were actually administering the same. But, unfortunately, the appellants have turned against the Masters themselves. They cannot be allowed to run the school under the same name and further more, it is stated that the 1st defendant was qualified only in SSLC and he was originally posted as Pastor and later on styled as a Principal of the School. He was never acting as a Correspondent of the School and he had no independent right. The lower appellate court had correctly appreciated the contentions of the parties and the finding is based on legal evidence. Apart from that, the finding of the lower appellate court is based on fact and there is no question of law, much less substantial question of law calling for interference. 15. For the reasons stated above, the Second Appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, CMP No.11015 of 2002 is also dismissed.