JUDGMENT (Prayer: Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the Judgment and Decree of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge of Madurai dated 18.10.1994 made in O.S.No.97 of 1983.) 1. This Appeal has been filed to set aside the Judgment and Decree, dated 18.10.1994 in O.S.No.97 of 1983 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai. 2. The brief facts of the plaint are as follows:- The plaintiffs belong to the Vainagaram family groups. The item No. 1 of the suit schedule property was purchased by the 4th plaintiff through a registered sale deeds dated 20.04.1882 and 19.06.1884 by his own income. The said building was used for worship of 63Nayanmars by placing their photos and worshiped by the family members for their welfare and they have also done poojas for their ancestors and conducted poojas for their annual ceremony. Hence, the said building was called as 'Arubathumoovar madam'. Afterwards, on 10.11.1890 and 18.06.1894 the item Nos.2 & 3 of the suit schedule properties were purchased for conducting the aforesaid poojas. The said buildings were purchased in the name of the defendants to honour their Sambandhies. The defendants have also interested in doing poojas and other religious activities. The 4th schedule property was also purchased by the defendants. The 5th schedule property was taken by the Government under the Inam Abolition Act and compensation was also paid to them. All the suit schedule properties exclusively belonged to Arubathumoovar madam and they were maintained by the plaintiffs. The defendants have also helped the plaintiffs in the said activities. Since the family members of the defendants tried to defeat the purpose for which the madam was established, the plaintiffs handed over the management to one Arunachalam Chettiar on 19.10.1927 temporarily and the plaintiffs helped him in doing the same. Thereafter, the defendants failed to accompany the plaintiffs and their family members in the activities of Arubathumoovar madam. The defendants tried to stop the plaintiffs from doing the aforesaid things and saying that they have relinquished their rights in the said madam. The suit schedule properties exclusively granted to the family of plaintiffs and Vainagaram family. They are the descendents of the ancestors of the said madam. The suit schedule properties were not purchasable and relinquishable. Hence, they are not salable and will not bind on the legal heirs if any such sale is made. The suit schedule properties exclusively granted to the family of plaintiffs and Vainagaram family. They are the descendents of the ancestors of the said madam. The suit schedule properties were not purchasable and relinquishable. Hence, they are not salable and will not bind on the legal heirs if any such sale is made. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiffs for a direction to the defendants to hand over the records and accounts of suit item Nos.1 to 4 and the management of the trust and to remove the defendants from the said trust and hand over the fund belongs to trust, if any and to frame a scheme decree regarding the management of family trust with the income from item Nos.5 of the suit schedule property. 3.The brief facts of the written statement filed by the defendant Nos.1 & 2 are as follows:- Though the plaintiffs have purported to file the suit on behalf of all the members of Vainagaram family, they have not laid the suit in conformity with the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code and on the said ground itself,the suit has to be rejected in limini. From the plaint, it is clear that for the past several decades, the members of these defendants' family alone have been functioning as Trustees for the plaint mentioned trust hereditarily and to the knowledge of these defendants, the plaintiffs or their predecessors have not functioned as Trustees. In the said circumstances, the plaintiffs ought to have filed the suit for recovery of possession and valued the suit under Section 30 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. It is clearly seen from the available records that the father of the 2nd defendant had been functioning as the sole trustee of the plaint mentioned Trust even in the year 1926. As per order made in I.A.No.36 of 1984, the plaintiffs have not chosen to produce the referred documents till now. It is therefore clear that the members of the defendants family alone have been functioning as Trustees for the plaint mentioned trust hereditarily for over a statutory period and for the last several decades and hence, the plaintiffs have lost their claim to the office of Trusteeship by prescription and adverse possession. It is therefore clear that the members of the defendants family alone have been functioning as Trustees for the plaint mentioned trust hereditarily for over a statutory period and for the last several decades and hence, the plaintiffs have lost their claim to the office of Trusteeship by prescription and adverse possession. The defendant Nos.1 & 2 denied the averments that they have not taken steps to get Ryotwari Patta of their lands in item Nos.2 & 3 of the suit schedule properties and that they have obtained Ryotwari Patta on the said lands. Further, the lands are maintained in good condition. The suit item No.1 of the suit schedule property was kept in good condition and after removing the shrubs on the well in the said land dried due to non-availability of water and these defendants are not responsible for the same. The kitchen in item No.1 was maintained regularly and that Thirunakshachitram for the Nayanmars Poojas are performed in a regular manner. Further, marriages were conducted in item No.1 of the suit schedule property as done in all religious places. It is admitted that front portion of Item No.1 was leased out for the shop. It is denied that Thiruvarathanai vessels are disappearing day by day and that the defendants have not bestored their best attention in this regard. By saying these allegations, the plaintiffs tried to dislodge the defendants from the trusteeship which they are not entitled to. Further, the son of the 1st plaintiff was permitted to stay in the 1st item of suit schedule property temporarily, which was tried to be converted as a permanent residence and when it was questioned by the defendants and being irritated by the same, the plaintiffs have filed the suit. There is no ground to remove the defendants from the office of trusteeship and for recovery of the trust properties from them. There is already a scheme framed for the management of the Trust even on 14.07.1951 and there is no need to frame a new scheme. There is no cause of action for filing the suit by the plaintiffs and hence, the suit has to be dismissed with costs of these defendants. There is already a scheme framed for the management of the Trust even on 14.07.1951 and there is no need to frame a new scheme. There is no cause of action for filing the suit by the plaintiffs and hence, the suit has to be dismissed with costs of these defendants. 4.The brief facts of the written statement filed by the 4th defendant are as follows:- The plaintiffs have filed a petition in I.A.No.236 of 1984 in O.S.No.97 of 1983 to set aside abatement of suit, was dismissed on 28.06.1984 and against the dismissal order, no appeal was preferred by them and hence, the suit has to be dismissed in limini. This Court by its order, dated 12.11.1987 in C.R.P.No.4208 of 1985 has observed that it is open to the parties to raise all objections that are available to them in the course of Trial in the suit. In all other aspects, the defendant adopted the written statement of defendant Nos.1 & 2. 5. Based on the above said pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:- “1.Whether it is true that the allegation against the defendants that they misused the power and involved illegal activities? 2.Whether the defendants are Dharma Karthas on their own rights? 3.Whether the defendants have claimed for management rights? 4.Whether the suit is maintainable? 5.Whether the Court fee is correct? 6.To what relief the plaintiffs are entitled? 6. The following additional issue was framed on 09.01.1991 1.Whether the 1st defendant is having adverse possession? 7. The following additional issue was framed on 18.08.1994 2.Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of the legal heirs of the 3rd defendant? 8. The following additional issue was framed on 18.10.1994 3.Whether the scheme decree is to be framed for running the Arakkattalai? 9. In order to substantiate the case, during trial on the side of the plaintiffs, one witness was examined as P.W.1 and 8 documents were marked as Exs.A.1 to A.8. On the side of the defendants, three witnesses were examined as D.W.1 to D.W.3 and 26 documents were marked as Exs.B.1 to B.26. 10. On conclusion of the trial, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side, the trial Court dismissed the suit in O.S.No.87 of 1993 on 18.10.1994. 11. Challenging the said judgment and decree, dated 18.10.1994, the plaintiffs have filed the present Appeal Suit before this Court. 12. 10. On conclusion of the trial, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side, the trial Court dismissed the suit in O.S.No.87 of 1993 on 18.10.1994. 11. Challenging the said judgment and decree, dated 18.10.1994, the plaintiffs have filed the present Appeal Suit before this Court. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellants belonged to Vainagaram family groups. The defendants belonged to Irattaiyar family groups. The forefather of the appellants have only created and managed the Trust till 1927. Thereafter, they have in order to honour their sambanthies, they entrusted the management of the trust to the Irattaiyar families. The ancestors of the appellants alone were entitled to hold that the office of the trusteeship under partition deed, dated 13.11.1905 and they never relinquished their rights. The partition deed, dated 13.11.1905 also filed before the Court through P.W.1 on 15.06.1994 and there is a specific reference to that document. But, the same has not been marked as an exhibit. The ancestors of the respondents never participated in the management of Trust prior to 1927, eventhough, they entrusted to the management of the trust to the respondents family. The appellants have also participated in the management of the trust. The appellants have established that the family properties purchased by the appellants in the name of the trust except one property which was purchased by the appellants and respondents. Now, the respondents have obtained Patta to the lands belonged to Arubathumoovar trust in their own name which itself shows that the act of the respondents are malafide. The same is a good ground for removing them from trusteeship. The accounts in Ex.B.6 to B.10 shows that no entry has been made with reference to the income from the suit Trust has not been properly administrated by the respondents. 13. He would further submit that during the cross examination of D.W.1 admitted that no worship was done in the 'Arulmighu Meenakshi Amman Temple' at Madurai. Even in Ex.A.4, the ancestors of the respondents have admitted that performance of worship in the temple of Goddess Meenakshi at Madurai as one of the requirements of the trust. D.W.1 further admitted that income has not been accounted for Ex.B.6 to Ex.B.10 and they have also not produced the ledgers which was in the custody of the respondents. Even in Ex.A.4, the ancestors of the respondents have admitted that performance of worship in the temple of Goddess Meenakshi at Madurai as one of the requirements of the trust. D.W.1 further admitted that income has not been accounted for Ex.B.6 to Ex.B.10 and they have also not produced the ledgers which was in the custody of the respondents. D.W.1 has also admitted in his evidence that the accounts relating to the year 1979 has not been filed and even are not audited and that the accounts did not contain the signatures of the trustees. D.W.1 further admitted that the trust has received Dastagi allowance from the Government and the accounts did not reflect in Ex.A.6. The rental income from the properties has not been credited for the year 1981 – 1985. The explanation offered by D.W.1 for non-crediting the rental income is falsified by his own statement that the income from the properties of the suit Trust are not included in the accounts maintained at Devakottai. D.W.1 has also admitted that the accounts for the suit trust do not show the income from the properties at Minvathangudi Village. The evidence of D.W.2 has also admitted that he does not know the details regarding the accounts before 1988. The act of the trustees in allowing marriages to be performed in the Arubathumoovar madam does not tamper the trust and its activities which is against the act of the trust. 14. He would further submit that the rental income from the shop in the item No.1 of the suit schedule property has not been properly accounted for Ex.B.24 and Ex.B.25 are only for a specific period and the income for the earlier period has not been disclosed. There are no ledgers maintained. The evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2 categorically admitted that the existence of the accounts and do not produce the same. Ex.B.17 to Ex.B.20 relates to the said trust. The income from the properties for the year 1968 to 1973 has not been accounted. The respondents have no right and title in the trust properties and they cannot made adverse possession against the trust or trust properties. The appellants never admitted that they have excluded from the year 1925. The forefather of the appellants have only created the trust and they maintained the same. The respondents have no right and title in the trust properties and they cannot made adverse possession against the trust or trust properties. The appellants never admitted that they have excluded from the year 1925. The forefather of the appellants have only created the trust and they maintained the same. Since the respondents belongs to the family group of Irattaiyar group and the appellants are belongs to the family group of Vainagaram in order to honour them, they included in the administration and they allowed to look after the administration. But, now they claim the right and title by adverse possession which is against the law. There is no relinquishment against the rights of the trust. Since the properties being transferred in their name from the trust and they have not properly maintained the accounts and mismanagement and the trust properties are using other than the act of the trust and they have to be removed from the trust and a scheme decree has to be framed. 15. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the appellants' predecessors had contributed for the establishment of the trust mentioned in the suit. Neither the appellants nor the predecessors have ever functioned as trustees along with the members of the respondents family at any point of time, ever since the establishment of the trust. The members of the defendants family and their predecessors have alone been functioning as trustees to the knowledge of the appellants and their predecessors. The respondents have acquired sale and exclusive rights to the office of the trusteeship by adverse possession also. In view to get over of the said fact, the appellants have falsely made certain allegations against the respondents and also they stated as if the appellants and their predecessors have also been functioning as trustees. Therefore, the trial Court had rightly dismissed the suit and there is no merits in the appeal. 16. This Court perused the material documents available on record. 17. Admittedly, the appellants families are called as Vainagaram family and the respondents families are called as Irattaiyar family. The appellants have filed the suit for removing the respondents from the trusteeship of the trust called as Arubathumoovar Guru Pooja trust which was created by their forefathers. 16. This Court perused the material documents available on record. 17. Admittedly, the appellants families are called as Vainagaram family and the respondents families are called as Irattaiyar family. The appellants have filed the suit for removing the respondents from the trusteeship of the trust called as Arubathumoovar Guru Pooja trust which was created by their forefathers. For delivery of possession of the properties of the trust given in the item Nos.1 to 4 of the suit schedule properties for framing scheme decree in respect of administration of the trust for accounting and for depositing the amounts shown in schedule. 18. After a full-fledged trial, the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai has dismissed the suit in O.S.No.97 of 1983. Challenging the said dismissal Judgment, the appellants are seeking relief by way of filing this Appeal. 19. Heard Mr.K.Govindarajan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Nos.5 to 9 and M/s.A.L.Gandhimathi, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. 20. Though the appellants have taken a specific stand that the family members of the appellants had created the trust, namely; Arubathimoovar and they have also purchased the properties in their name and item No.1 is Kalyana Mandapam and the main case of the appellants is that till 1927 they were in the management. After 1927, there is an understanding between the appellants and respondents, since the respondents are Sambanthi families and in order to honour them they have also purchased the item No.3 of the suit schedule property in the name of both the appellants and respondents. According to the appellants, they have not maintained the trust properties and they are acting against the interest of trust and also they are not properly accounting the accounts. 21. On a mere reading of the pleadings of the appellants and entire oral evidences and documents available on record, the respondents have not denied the allegations made by the appellants are no way connected with the trust. Though they have stated that the appellants have contributed for creation of the trust and the main contention of the respondents is that from the year 1927 they left the management with the respondents and they have not participated in the management and they never claimed any rights. Therefore, the respondents got right by adverse possession. 22. Though they have stated that the appellants have contributed for creation of the trust and the main contention of the respondents is that from the year 1927 they left the management with the respondents and they have not participated in the management and they never claimed any rights. Therefore, the respondents got right by adverse possession. 22. It is settled proposition of law that no adverse possession against the trust or trust properties can be claimed and even period of limitation is not applicable to the trust or trust properties. 23. On a careful perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, it is admitted in the evidence of D.W.1 that they have not produced the accounts continuously. Though they have stated that the accounts have been maintained by the Head office, Devakottai the same was not produced. All the income and accounts of the trust properties have been properly maintained and accounted and there was an internal audit. But, they have not produced the same. The appellants have stated that the properties are being misutilised, the respondents have not denied the same, but, they have stated that no damage to the properties. 24. On reading of the entire materials shows that the properties are trust properties. The respondents have not properly maintained the trust properties and accounts. Once, the appellants placed certain questions that the respondents are not maintaining the trust properly, admitted that now the trust is under the control of the respondents. They have also stated that from 1927, the appellants have no rights in the trust which means till the year 1927 the appellants were in the management and after that the respondents are in the management and hence, the respondents are liable to account for the trust properties. The materials shows that the appellants and their forefathers only created the trust, but now the respondents are in the management of the trust. Whatever the reason may be the appellants either voluntarily gave it to honour their sambanthies or any understanding between them, however, handed over the management of the trust to the respondents. The respondents have not denied that they are not the managing the trust but now they are claiming their exclusive right and the appellants have no right in the management of the trust and now they cannot say that the appellants have lost their right and title by adverse possession. 25. The respondents have not denied that they are not the managing the trust but now they are claiming their exclusive right and the appellants have no right in the management of the trust and now they cannot say that the appellants have lost their right and title by adverse possession. 25. As already stated there cannot be any claim of adverse possession as against the trust or trust properties. The respondents admitted that the trust is under the control and management of the respondents at present. They are accountable for the same. Since the respondents have not produced any accounts and they have not established the allegations levelled against them by the appellants are false or malafide. The records clearly shows that the accounts are not properly maintained. 26. Therefore, under these circumstances, the trustees are liable to maintain the accounts and also there is no internal audit report or ledger has also been filed. They have also admitted that from the year 1927 they are managing the trust and trust properties under the control of them. But, they have not produced any accounts. 27. In view of the above discussions, this Court finds that the respondents are liable to be removed from the trustship and a scheme decree has to be framed. 28. Accordingly, this Appeal is allowed by setting aside the Judgment and Decree, dated 18.10.1994 in O.S.No.97 of 1983 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai. Both the appellants and respondents are directed to submit their draft scheme before the Registry, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. No costs.