M.M.PUNCHHI, J.

(1) HIS appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and decree of the High court of Madras in Second Appeal No. 2170 of 1972, upsetting the concurrent judgment of the courts below.

(2) FACTS giving rise thereto, when digested, appear to be within a narrow compass. The plaintiff-respondent set up a case that being the widow of one Nangu Odayar, she was the successor trustee of a temple situated in her village Kottampatti and within the Vattam of Ariyaripatti (for short to be called "village A"), her husband being the erstwhile trustee, and the suit lands situated in Manjapattai Vattam (for short to be called "village M"), were owned by the said temple. And further, since the defendant-appellant had been successful in proceedings under S. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in establishing his possession, over the suit lands, it had become necessary for her to safeguard the interests of the temple and to seek possession of the suit lands.

(3) THE defence of the defendant-appellants was that there was no temple in village Kottampatti or its Vattam known as village A. It was cross-asserted by him that there rather was