JUDGMENT M. Venugopal, J. 1. The Appellant/Applicant/Defendant has focussed the instant O.S.A.Nos.156 & 157 of 2014 as against the Common Order dated 03.12.2013, in A.Nos.4581 & 4582 of 2013, in C.S.No.360 of 2012, passed by the Learned Single Judge. 2. The Learned Single Judge, while passing the Common Order, in A.Nos.4581 & 4582 of 2013 in C.S.No.360 of 2012, on 03.12.2013, has, in paragraph No.20, observed that 'Whether the provisions of the Indian Trust Act would be applicable to the Public Trust or not, is not necessary to decide the issue involved in these applications' etc. and consequently, dismissed the Applications as devoid of merits. 3. According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant (in both the Appeals), the Learned Single Judge had erred completely in overlooking the point that when the pleadings were completed and issues framed on 27.06.2013, it was not known as to how many Trustees were in all in the Respondent/Plaintiff Trust as on the date of filing of the suit viz., on 08.08.2012. Resultantly, the Learned Single Judge completely missed the point that on filing of the proof affidavit on 16.08.2013, it became the admitted case of the Respondent/ Plaintiff that there were/are four trustees in all in the Trust as on date of filing of the suit. 4. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that as regards the deposition of P.W.1 and marking of resolutions of Plaintiff Trust dated 07.03.2012 and 01.06.2012 as Exs.P.2 and P.1 respectively, it became an admitted fact of the Respondent/Plaintiff Trust that both the resolutions were not signed by all the four trustees as Ex.P.2 (resolution dated 07.03.2012) was signed only by two trustees while Ex.P.1 (resolution dated 01.06.2012) was signed by three out of four trustees. 5. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that Prof. D.S.Luther was not authorised by all the three remaining trustees to file the Civil Suit and in terms of ingredients of Section 47 and 48 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, the Issue No.1 as to whether the suit is properly instituted, by a person duly authorised by the trustees of the Respondent/Plaintiff Trust, in accordance with the constituent documents viz., Trust Deed of the Trust etc. is a pure question of law and this vital aspect of the matter was not taken into account by the Learned Single Judge, while dismissing the A.No.4582 of 2013. 6. is a pure question of law and this vital aspect of the matter was not taken into account by the Learned Single Judge, while dismissing the A.No.4582 of 2013. 6. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Defendant projects an argument that the Learned Single Judge had ignored the equities in the subject matter in issue and also fair play on the part of the Appellant in taking out a simultaneous Application for eschewing the evidence of P.W.1 so that the Respondent/Plaintiff Trust can take out an amendment Application and proceed further. 7. Lastly, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Defendant that the Learned Single Judge had completely brushed aside all the ingredients/parameters for trying applications for preliminary issue in the instant case. 8. Per contra, it is submission of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff that in the main Civil Suit, 1 to 11 issues were framed and before the Learned Master of this Court, P.W.1's Chief Examination was tendered, by means of a Proof Affidavit, dated 16.08.2013 and at that point of time, two applications were filed on behalf of the Appellant/Applicant/Defendant, one for eschewing the evidence in chief (by way of Proof Affidavit dated 16.08.2013) of P.W.1 (Secretary of the Plaintiff Trust) and another for trying the preliminary issue viz., whether the suit property is properly instituted by a person duly authorised by the Trustee of the Plaintiff Trust etc. 9. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff submits that Section 48 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 applies to a Private Trust and in any event, when once the evidence of P.W.1 had commenced in the main Civil Suit, it is desirable for a Court of Law to try all the issues framed by it (including the preliminary issue touching upon the aspect whether the suit is properly instituted by a person duly authorised by the Trustee of the Plaintiff Trust etc.). 10. Finally, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff that the competency of a witness or the validity of the resolution authorising a person to tender evidence in the suit on behalf of the Respondent/Plaintiff cannot be decided as a preliminary issue inasmuch as the Plaintiff can examine any number of witnesses who are required to substantiate their case. Furthermore, the Appellant/Applicant/Defendant filed application belatedly on 10.9.2013 and on 16.09.2013 respectively in the subject matter in issue only with a view to protract the proceedings. 11. This Court has heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/ Applicant/Defendant and the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/ Plaintiff and noticed their respective contentions. 12. The Respondent/Plaintiff, in the Civil Suit in C.S.No.360 of 2012, against the Appellant/Applicant/Defendant had sought for passing of a Judgment and Decree in respect of the following reliefs: “(a) Directing the Defendant to quit and deliver to the Plaintiff vacant possession of the premises bearing Old Door No.219, New No.289, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 006, more fully described in the suit schedule hereunder; b) Directing the Defendant to pay damages of Rs.27,30,000/- for use and occupation of the suit property at the rate of Rs.70,000/- per day from 1.5.2012 till 7.6.2012, the date of plaint. c) Directing the Defendant to pay damages for use and occupation of the suit property at the rate of Rs.70,000/- per day from the date of plaint till date of handing over vacant possession of the suit property. d) For costs of the suit.” 13. The Appellant/Applicant/Defendant had filed a detailed Written Statement, inter alia, contending that the Respondent/Plaintiff is not entitled to and cannot terminate the lease in the absence of any breach committed by the Appellant and further is entitled to protect its possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Moreover, the Appellant had also denied that it is in illegal occupation as a trespasser and/or is liable to pay damages at Rs.70,000/- per day or any other rate and/or is required to deliver vacant possession of the suit premises to the Respondent/Plaintiff. In effect, the stand of the Appellant is that the Respondent/Plaintiff is not entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed in the Civil Suit. 14. It is to be pointed out that the burden of proving an 'Issue' lies on the party alleging the matter in issue. In effect, the onus of proving an issue looses its importance where both parties have led evidence. Indeed, 'Disputed Questions of Fact' cannot be decided without permitting parties to lead evidence in support of their respective cases as per decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanhiya Singh Santok Singh and others V. Kartar Singh, (2009) 5 Supreme Court Cases 155. 15. Indeed, 'Disputed Questions of Fact' cannot be decided without permitting parties to lead evidence in support of their respective cases as per decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanhiya Singh Santok Singh and others V. Kartar Singh, (2009) 5 Supreme Court Cases 155. 15. It is the solemn duty of a Court of Law to adjudicate on all issues, though decision may depend upon one issue alone. 16. It is always desirable for a Court of Law to frame issues on the controversies raised in pleadings and decide them on merits. It is to be noted that for an issue to be decided, it should be pleaded, evidence to be let in and the opposite party ought to be given an opportunity to cross examine such evidence. 17. It is to be borne in mind that 'the first hearing of the suit' can never be earlier, than the date fixed for the preliminary examination of the parties as per Order 10 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code and the settlement of issues under Order 14 Rule 1(5) of C.P.C. In fact, Order 14 Rule 2 of C.P.C. enjoins that in case where issues both of Law and Fact arise in the same suit, the Court is under an obligation to pronounce Judgment on all the issues, unless it records an opinion that the case or any part thereof could be disposed of on an issues of Law and Fact. 18. As a matter of fact, it is not mandatory for a Court of Law to decide an issue as a preliminary issue or not, according to the circumstances of a given case. It cannot be gainsaid that a Court of Law has discretion to try an issue as a preliminary issue under Order 14 Rule 2(2) of C.P.C. The decision of a Court of Law, on all issues, is the rule and disposal of a suit on a preliminary issue or a single issue on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and a bar of suit created by any law is an exception, in the considered opinion of this Court. However, when there is a Mixed Questions of Law and Fact, then, the suit cannot be decided on a preliminary issue. 19. It is to be pointed out that a 'Trust' is not a legal entity as such. It is the Trustees who are the legal entities. 20. However, when there is a Mixed Questions of Law and Fact, then, the suit cannot be decided on a preliminary issue. 19. It is to be pointed out that a 'Trust' is not a legal entity as such. It is the Trustees who are the legal entities. 20. As far as the present case is concerned, the examination of P.W.1 (in chief) had commenced, by means of Proof Affidavit. In fact, a cursory perusal of the Plaint, 1 to 11 issues were framed in the main suit in C.S.No.360 of 2012 clearly speaks of the first issue viz., whether the suit is properly instituted by a person duly authorised by the Trustees of the Plaintiff Trust in accordance with the constituent documents namely Trust Deed etc. of the Trust. When the chief examination of P.W.1 had commenced in the main suit (by way of proof affidavit), then, this Court is of the considered view that the said Issue No.1 need not be tried as a preliminary issue and the said issue can be decided along with other issues and in this regard, it is open to the respective parties to let in oral and documentary evidence, as they deem fit and proper, as opined by this Court. Also that, the Issue No.1, as stated supra, is certainly a pure 'Mixed Question of Fact and Law'. That apart, the Issue No.1, instead of being taken up as a preliminary issue, can be decided along with other issues by a Court of Law, of course after taking necessary oral and documentary evidence and adopting this kind of procedure is not an illegality, in the eye of law. 21. It is a well settled proposition of law that if an issue framed is required to be taken as a preliminary issue which touches upon the question of fact and law and if that issue/preliminary issue strikes at the very existence of the suit, then, it is appropriate for a Court of Law to take up that issue/preliminary issue along with other issues framed in the suit and there is no legal bar in this regard and that too, when the examination of P.W.1 (in chief) in the main suit had commenced (by way of filing of a proof affidavit). Even an issue depending on fact cannot be tried as a preliminary issue. Even an issue depending on fact cannot be tried as a preliminary issue. Even if the suit can be disposed of, an issue of law only it is not obligatory on a Court of Law to try the same as a preliminary issue. When the Court has framed all issues of fact as well as law and when the evidence of P.W.1 had commenced, in the main suit, then, it is not open to adopt a principle of severability and proceed to decide the issues of Law first without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. In an appealable case, a Court of Law ought to decide all issues jointly (including the Mixed Question of Fact and Law) and not in piece meal, so as to avoid a possible remand by a Superior forum. 22. Viewed in that perspective, this Court is of the considered view that the issue relating to authorisation given to Prof. D.S.Luther to represent the Trust need not be tried as preliminary issue, can be decided along with other issues and the Authority of the said Prof. D.S.Luther to represent the Plaintiff Trust can be assailed by the Appellant/Defendant by cross examining the witness viz., P.W.1 in accordance with law. As such, the view taken by the Learned Single Judge, in A.No.4582 of 2013, dated 03.12.2013, that the first issue cannot be tried as preliminary one, does not suffer from any patent infirmity in the eye of law, as opined by this Court. 23. Coming to the aspect of eschewing the evidence of P.W.1, as prayed for by the Appellant/Applicant/Defendant in A.No.4581 of 2013, it is to be pointed out that the P.W.1 (Secretary of the Respondent/ Plaintiff) filed proof affidavit (by way of chief examination) and the Appellant's Counsel raised a preliminary objection in regard to P.W.1's competency to depose on behalf of the Respondent/Plaintiff Trust, the maintainability of the suit filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff and the competency of the P.W.1 to depose on behalf of the Respondent/ Plaintiff Trust as its Secretary are all matters/issues to be decided along with other issues after full trial and in law, there cannot be a piece meal decision. Indeed, this Court has already held that the Issue No.1 framed in the main suit in C.S.No.360 of 2012 need not be taken up as a preliminary issue for consideration and in law, the decision of a Court of Law must be on all issues and that is the normal rule. Looking at from that angle, it is palatable and quite desirable for the benefit of the parties that all issues framed in the suit can be decided completely and comprehensively and that too, when the chief examination of P.W.1 had commenced in the main suit in C.S.No.360 of 2012 and virtually the main suit is in Part -Heard stage. In reality, P.W.1 can be cross examined on the side of the Appellant/Defendant based on his examination in chief and certainly, the Appellant/Applicant/Defendant, in law, is entitled to cross examine P.W.1 and elicit answers. Therefore, the plea taken on behalf of the Appellant/Applicant/ Defendant that to eschew the evidence in chief (by way of Proof Affidavit dated 16.08.2013) of P.W.1 cannot be acceded to by this Court, because of the simple reason that this Court had already held that the Issue No.1, need not be tried as Preliminary Issue. Consequently, the Original Side Appeals fail. 24. In the result, the Original Side Appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.