TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (7) TMI 347
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aint schedule property and to hold and possess the plaint scheduled property as such and to live in the building in this property and carry on the religious and charitable functions in the institutions in this property, in accordance with the bye-laws and memorandum of associations relating to the same. (b) Granting a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in any way with the 1st plaintiff's rights stated above and from trespassing into the plaint scheduled property and the buildings therein. (c) Granting a decree for all the costs of the plaintiff in connection with the suit from the defendants". The defendants pleaded in their written statements and counter-affidavits to the fol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is capacity as a trustee is clear from the pleadings in the said suit. A reference in this connection to para 10 of the plaint as also the prayers is relevant. It reads :-- "The 1st plaintiff constituted the Trust with , the objects aforesaid among others and established the Mar Thoma Bhavan and expanded the same with voluntary contributions from abroad and supplemented from resources he could command locally also. The 1st plaintiff himself became the Trustee and hold the properties which are described in the plaint schedule herein and also the institutions established there .......... The plaintiffs-therefore prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to summon the defendants and grant the decree in the following terms :-- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce the same continuously". 5. On a perusal of the pleadings in both the suits it is clear that the parties and the reliefs sought for in both suits are virtually the same. But to make it appear that the present suit is different from the earlier suit, the plaintiffs have made certain statements in the plaint and also impleaded certain new parties, which under the circumstances, in my view, are of no consequence. They are nothing but a camouflage to make it appear that the subject-matter of this suit is different from the subject-matter of the earlier suit. It is in this backdrop the issue requires to be considered. 6. We will now consider as to whether the present suit is hit by the provisions contained in Order 23, Rule 1, Sub-rule ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of action in the suit and if that be so a suit on a different cause of action is not barred under this Rule, although the suit may relate to the same property. From the facts discussed above, it is clear that the cause of action for the earlier suit is the same as the cause of action for the present suit from out of which this revision arises. But to make it appear that the present suit is different from the earlier suit, the plaintiffs have made certain statements in the plaint which as already noted, are of no consequence. On a perusal of the pleadings of the plaintiffs in both suits, it is clear that the subject-matter of the present suit is the same as the subject-matter of the earlier suit. Remove the camouflage, introduced in the plea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ement between the first plaintiff and defendants brought about under coercion etc., subsequent to the withdrawal of the earlier suit, is likely to tell upon the right of the trustee, first plaintiff to manage the trust properties. It is true that there are certain statements in that regard but there is no prayer in the suit that the said agreement shall be declared null and void. On the other hand, going through the pleadings in both the suits it could be seen that the one and only prayer sought for, is for the issuance of a permanent injunction against the defendants. As already observed the case of the plaintiffs in the present suit is the same as the case they had set up in the previous suit namely that the first plaintiff being a truste....