JUDGMENT:- 1. The first revision petitioner had filed a suit in O.S.No.97 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif, Ramanathapuram for declaration that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the trustees of the suit property and for a consequential injunction. 2. The first respondent herein had filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to implead him as the 9th defendant in the suit. The first respondent herein had averred in the affidavit in support of the application that an extent of 84 cents of land in S.Nos.335/232 and 335/233, 335/234 originally belonged to Sevvur Kandasamy Devar and he created a trust in the name and style of Shanmugananda Bajanai Mutt on 29/6/1883. Originally, there were eleven persons appointed as trustees who were administering the properties. Subsequently, a scheme was framed on 12/3/1997 which was registered as Document No.4/1997 in Sub-Registrar Office, Ramanathapuram. The patta for the suit property is standing in the name of Muthukoon Servai, Sivarama Krishnan, Krishnan, Koneri Dass, who were the trustees of Shanmugananda Bajanai Mutt. The said Sivarama Krishnan died and along with other trustees, one P.M.Gurusamy was acting as a Secretary of the trust. Accordingly, a trust had been managed by the above said persons. While so, the plaintiffs who have no right or title in the suit property had filed the above suit. 3. Originally, the third plaintiff Rathineswaran died. He claimed to be the son of one of the original trustees. According to the respondents, the said Rathineshwaran was not a trustee as per the scheme framed on 12/3/1997. Therefore, the revision petitioners have got no right or title over the suit property. As the plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration and their right as trustees, the application for impleading the respondents was filed. 4. The said application was resisted by the plaintiffs contending that P.M.Gurusamy was never the Secretary of Sri Shanmugananda Bajanai Madam and he is in no way connected with the same. The said Gurusamy is said to be employed privately. The trust deed dated 12/3/1997 is denied by the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs also denied the rights of other trustees who are said to be in management of the same. 5. The said Gurusamy is said to be employed privately. The trust deed dated 12/3/1997 is denied by the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs also denied the rights of other trustees who are said to be in management of the same. 5. In the above factual matrix, the learned District Munsif, Ramanathapuram, allowed the impleadment of the said Gurusamy in the suit in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The said order is now being challenged. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 7. When the Mutt is shown as one of the plaintiffs represented by its Superintendent Retineswaran since deceased and the proposed party can be impleaded only in his individual name and not as the Secretary of the Trust. 8. The said Gurusamy has not sought to implead himself in his personal capacity but as Sri Shanmugananda Bajanai Mutt through its Secretary P.M.Gurusamy. The plaintiffs have sought for the relief for declaration that they should be declared as trustees to manage the suit property. The plaintiffs are also unable to say in what way they are the trustees to the said Bajanai Mutt. However, that is the question to be decided in the suit. The impleadment of Gurusamy, who claims to be the Secretary of the said trust for which the plaintiffs are also claim right has to be allowed as both the parties are making rival claims for the management of the said trust. Therefore, the impleadment allowed by the trial Court is correct and mere impleading would not cause any prejudice to the other side. 9. Both the parties viz., the plaintiffs and the proposed defendant claim right of management to the trust properties. In such circumstances, the trial Court also though it fit to allow the application for impleadment to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. However, before deciding the trusteeship of the parties, the proposed party cannot be allowed to be impleaded as Secretary of the trust. Therefore, the order of the trial Judge is modified to the extent that the said P.M.Gurusamy can be impleaded as a party to the suit in his individual capacity and not as the Secretary of the Trust. The trusteeship can be decided only in the suit. Therefore, the impleadment allowed is confirmed with the modification indicated above. 10. Therefore, the order of the trial Judge is modified to the extent that the said P.M.Gurusamy can be impleaded as a party to the suit in his individual capacity and not as the Secretary of the Trust. The trusteeship can be decided only in the suit. Therefore, the impleadment allowed is confirmed with the modification indicated above. 10. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed and the order dated 21/10/2013 made in I.A.No.517 of 2013 in O.S.No.52 of 1998 by the District Munsif, Ramanathapuram is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.