5.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioners made submissions that Interlocutory Application filed by the Trust is not maintainable. In order to substantiate his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that a portion of the property was already alienated through the deed of exchange in the year 1970, in favour of one Smt.Lakshmi Ammal, wife of A.Ramasamy alias Rama Iyer (one of the Trustees). Thus, the property, which was handed over to the said Lakshmi Ammal by way of exchange deed in the year 1970, cannot be taken away by the trust by filing an Interlocutory Application, in the scheme suit, filed in O.S.No.199 of 2002. Further, the contention of the petitioners is that the said Lakshmi Ammal is to be treated as a third party for all purposes. More over, in respect of the property in dispute, she was not a trustee nor connected with the public trust. This being the factum, the transaction between the managing trustee and the said Lakshmi Ammal is to be treated as private and independent one and accordingly, the property already handed over through exchange deed cannot be dealt with by the trust under section 92 of CPC. In other words, Interlocutory Application, in scheme suit, in order to recover the possession is not maintainable. The scope of the Interlocutory Application, cannot travel beyond the scope of the main suit. In the present case, the relief sought for in the Interlocutory Application is travelling beyond the scope of the civil suit and therefore, the Interlocutory Application, itself is to be rejected in liminie.
