which has been marked as Ex.A3. It is found, thereafter, that according to the 2nd defendant, Muthukumar had unilaterally cancelled the arrangement made by the trustees under Ex.A6 on 13.01.2003 vide Ex.B4 a self serving document, admittedly, which has not been registered. Therefore, it could be seen that according to the 2nd defendant, inasmuch as Ex.A6 has come to be challenged or cancelled, particularly, the appointment of Ramkumar as the Managing Trustee had been challenged by one of the trustees viz, Muthukumar, Ramkumar cannot proceed with the suit further and therefore, it is contended that the suit, as such, is not maintainable. However, as rightly put forth by the plaintiff counsel, under Ex.A6 registered arrangement, the trustees had unanimously appointed Ramkumar as the Managing Trustee and accordingly, as per the line of succession, it is found that Ramkumar had been Managing the Trust. In such a view of the matter, it cannot be accepted that Muthukumar would be entitled to cancel the same unilaterally under Ex.B4, which is admittedly not registered and therefore, can not have the seal of approval by a competent court. In such view of the matter, it could be seen that when Ex.B4 has no legal entity as such and when it has not been established that under the same Ex.A6 had been legally cancelled, as rightly put forth by the plaintiff's counsel. Ex.B4 cancellation deed is non est in the eyes of law and no reliance could be safely placed upon the same.
