Judgment :- R. Banumathi, J. This appeal is directed against the order in O.A.No.5109/2001 in O.P.No.515/1996 dismissing the application and declining to revoke the Letters of Administration granted in O.P.No.515/1996. 2. Factual background of the case in brief are as follows :- The subject matter relates to immovable properties – house and premises bearing D.No.258, 259 and 260, Tiruchendur Road, Tirunelveli to an extent of 25 cents and 7.39 acres in S.No.432/1, Arukal Village, Kodaikanal Taluk. Late Thiru. David Muthiah Devadoss, formerly Judge of High Court Madras had executed a Trust Deed on 010. 1944 and the Executor had created a Trust under the said Deed for promoting Tamil Literature and to award Scholarship etc. The Executor himself was the Trustee during his lifetime and after his demise, his son Samuel Srinivasagam Muthukrishnan had become the Trustee. The said Samuel Srinivasagam Muthukrishnan had executed a general Power of Attorney on 10.02.1993 in the name of Raja Rhenius who is the sisters husband of the said Muthukrishnan. Power was conferred with the power to execute Lease Deed and Rectification Deed and other documents in connection with the properties. The said Raja Rhenius had cancelled the Trust Deed by document dated 010. 1994. Thereafter, the said Raja Rhenius had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of his son Jayanth Rhenius [the first Respondent] on 07.04.1997, empowering the first respondent to sell the properties at Palayamkottai and Kodaikanal. The first Respondent had sold the properties at Palayamkotai to the sixth respondent by Sale Deed dated 11.04.1997. The first Respondent had also sold the Kodaikanal properties to respondents 2 to 5 by registered Sale Deed dated 15.03.1999. The first Respondent had filed O.P.No.515/1996 stating that it is not feasible to maintain the Trust property and the first Respondent prayed for issuance of Letters of Administration, which was granted on 10.01.1997. 3. Alleging that the first Respondent has no power to alienate any of the Trust properties and that no permission was obtained from any Court of law nor ratification was obtained, the appellant filed O.A.No.5109/2001 to revoke the Letters of Administration. The appellant further alleged that the Trust Deed is a perpetual one and it cannot be revoked and the Trustees cannot act against the wish of the author of the Trust and the descendants of the Executor are bound to administer the properties and carry on the object of the Trust. 4. The appellant further alleged that the Trust Deed is a perpetual one and it cannot be revoked and the Trustees cannot act against the wish of the author of the Trust and the descendants of the Executor are bound to administer the properties and carry on the object of the Trust. 4. That application was dismissed by the learned Single Judge finding that the appellant Society is neither a beneficiary nor has any caveatable interest in the property and no valid and just cause is made out for revoking the Letters of Administration. .5. Challenging the impugned Order and drawing our attention to various documents and the recitals thereon, the learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. D. Rajagopal has submitted that the entire proceeding in O.P.No.515/1996 are vitiated by fraud and therefore, the same can be challenged by anyone at any stage. It was further submitted that the provisions under Indian Succession Act will not apply, since the Deed dedicating the property is a Trust Deed and not a Will and hence, probate proceedings will not apply to the facts of the case. The learned Counsel further urged that the appellant Society, interested in protecting the Tamil language, can seek for revocation of Letters of Administration. It was further submitted that in any event, the first Respondent should have applied for framing a scheme for administering the Trust Property and ought not to have invoked the probate proceedings. 6. Countering the arguments, the learned Counsel for the first Respondent has submitted that the Appellant Society is neither a beneficiary nor has any caveatable interest and has no locus standi to seek for revocation of the Letters of Administration. 7. Even at the outset, it is to be pointed out that the appellant society has no locus standi. Even though the Appellant Society claims to be a registered society, interested in promoting Tamil language, hardly any material was produced showing that the appellant society was registered. In the Trust Deed, the Executor David Muthiah Devadoss had executed the Trust Deed expressing his wish that as author of the Trust, he is desirous of promoting the study of Tamil literature and rendering help to Tamil scholars with a view to promoting proficiency and scholarship in Tamil and for the purpose of carrying out those objects, he has created a Trust. Trust Deed dated 010. Trust Deed dated 010. 1944 elaborates various functional activities – for arranging lectures and awarding scholarships to Tamil scholars and also to the students who are excelling in Tamil language. Having regard to the limited scope of enquiry in this appeal, it is not necessary for us to elaborate upon the details of various schemes enumerated in the Trust Deed. Suffice it to note that the object of the Trust is to promote Tamil Language. 8. In the Trust Deed, Executor has stated that his son Samuel Srinivasagam Muthukrishnan shall be the Trustee and after his death, his son or sons shall be the Trustees and if anybody appointed by Muthukrishnan was not willing or unable to administer the properties, anyone who is interested in the study of Tamil language shall be entitled to apply to the proper Court for appointing Trustee or Trustees for carrying out the objects of the said Trust. According to the appellant society, it falls within the category "interested in the study of Tamil language". We fail to understand as to how the appellant society is interested in promoting the Tamil language. .9. Apart from that of locus standi, the motive of appellant society is also to be noted. One Dr. Reginald is the Vice President of appellant society. On behalf of the respondents, it is stated that at the time of purchase of Palayamkottai property by sixth respondent from the first Respondent, one Sekar and two others were in possession of the premises as Tenants. R-6 filed a Petition for eviction of Tenants in RCOP No.66/1998 and eviction was ordered on the ground of demolition and reconstruction and for wilful default. At that time, the said Dr. Reginald, who was one of the Office Bearers of the appellant society, had filed the suit for injunction, claiming that he was a Tenant under the original owner. The said suit filed by Dr. Reginald was dismissed and eviction Petition was ordered. The matter was taken up in appeal by the Tenants as well as by Dr. Reginald in RCA No.36/1999 and A.S.No.3/1999 before the Sub Court, Tirunelveli and both appeals were dismissed. CRP and Second Appeal preferred against those Judgments were also dismissed by the High Court. Special Leave Petition preferred before the Supreme Court was also dismissed. The matter was taken up in appeal by the Tenants as well as by Dr. Reginald in RCA No.36/1999 and A.S.No.3/1999 before the Sub Court, Tirunelveli and both appeals were dismissed. CRP and Second Appeal preferred against those Judgments were also dismissed by the High Court. Special Leave Petition preferred before the Supreme Court was also dismissed. It is further stated that Dr.Reginald himself filed a claim Petition and claimed the same right which was also negatived by the Civil Court. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the appellant society is set up by the unsuccessful Tenants and Dr. Reginald with intention to squat on the property. Taking note of the various litigations, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the appellant society is neither a beneficiary nor has caveatable interest to seek for revocation of Letters of Administration. 10. Properties at Palayamkottai and Kodaikanal are said to have been sold for a huge amount, around Rs.One crore to two crores. The learned Counsel for the appellant has raised objection that the amount is not utilized for the purposes for which Trust was created and appellants have made out a just cause as contemplated under Section 263 of Indian Succession Act and therefore, the Letters of Administration is to be revoked. The learned Counsel for the first Respondent has submitted that the amount is kept in Fixed Deposit and the object of the Trust is being carried out in an effective manner and that the first Respondent is prepared to submit the accounts and is also prepared to abide by conditions that shall be imposed by this Court. Taking note of the said submission made on behalf of the first Respondent, we deem it fit to direct that the entire assets of the Trust property shall be under the direct supervision and administration of Administrative General and Official Trustee [AG & OT]. 11. As a result of our above discussion, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge and this OSA is liable to be dismissed. However, the first Respondent shall submit the accounts to AG & OT. AG & OT shall scrutinize the accounts submitted and also submit a report to the Portfolio in-charge Judge as to how best the object of the Trust could be performed by simultaneously ensuring effective control over the assets of the Trust. However, the first Respondent shall submit the accounts to AG & OT. AG & OT shall scrutinize the accounts submitted and also submit a report to the Portfolio in-charge Judge as to how best the object of the Trust could be performed by simultaneously ensuring effective control over the assets of the Trust. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the order of the learned Single Judge is confirmed and this appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.