The main legal point established in the judgment is that in a dispute over temple rights, the courts may determine the issue of title in a suit for injunction if the matter involved is simple and straightforward, and there is no need for a more comprehensive declaratory suit.

JUDGMENT :

The appellant is the appellant in A.S.No.62/2016 on the file of the third Additional District Court, Palakkad (hereinafter referred to as 'the first appellate court') and the 1st defendant in O.S.No.306/2013 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Chittur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court'). The parties are hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiffs' and 'the defendants' according to their status in the trial court unless otherwise stated.

2. The Kittummaman Kovil in Thattamangalam in the present Palakkad District belonged originally to the Ayyampathy Palat family. The plaintiffs as well as the 2nd defendant are members of the aforesaid family. Since the 2nd defendant did not join in the suit as plaintiff, she is arrayed as the 2nd defendant. In the suit, no relief is claimed against the 2nd defendant. She has agreed and consented to file the above suit as against the 1st defendant. In a suit for partition of the Palat family as O.S.No.15/1118 ME of the District Court, Thrissur, the plaint schedule property is included as one of the items available for partition among the members of the family. In the above suit, the plaint schedule property was kept in common, but, its custody and management was given to the 'G-Group' mentioned in the final decree. The G-Group consists of defendants 8, 14 to 18 and 63 of the said suit. The 8th defendant in the said suit is Smt.Savithri Amma, who is the mother of the plaintiffs 1 to 6 and the 2nd defendant. The defendants 14 to 18 and 63 mentioned in the above suit are the children of the aforesaid Smt.Savithri Amma. The plaintiffs 5 and 6 were not born at the time of passing of final decree in O.S.No.15/1118 ME. The 1st defendant is the priest of the temple situated in the plaint schedule property. The temple in the plaint schedule property is a private temple. The 1st defendant is conducting poojas in the plaint schedule temple on the basis of appointment made by the members of the GGroup. Of late, the 1st defendant started conducting 'Adharma pooja' in the temple, which is against the rituals followed in the temple. The 1st defendant also interfered with the administration of the temple. Hence, the members of the G-Group decided to terminate the 1st defendant from the post of poojari. His appointment was terminated as per Advocate Notice dated 03.07.2013. In spite of the receipt of the Advocate notice, he did not handover the key of the temple and possession of the temple to the plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant. Hence, the plaintiffs instituted O.S.No.306/2013 before the Munsiff's Court, Chittur, in which the appellant herein is the 1st defendant, seeking a prayer directing him to surrender possession and to handover the key of the temple to the plaintiffs and further prohibitory injunction restraining the 1st defendant from interfering with the functioning of the temple.

3. The 1st defendant filed a written statement mainly contending that the 1st defendant's grandfather was appointed as 'poojari' by the 'karanavar' of the Palat family. He belongs to the Pandaram community which is known in the area for conducting poojas. After the death of the grandfather Sri.Sankara Pandaram, the father of the 1st defendant Sri.Nataraja Pandaram continued to perform hereditary pooja rites. After his death, the 1st defendant inherited those rights and he is the current poojari. Hence, the 1st defendant filed a written statement mainly contending that the hereditary rights of the poojari of the family of the 1st defendant cannot be restrained by anybody and the 1st defendant being in lawful possession and enjoyment of the hereditary rights cannot be thrown out by an injunction simpliciter.

4. The trial court decreed the suit. An appeal was filed before the District Court, Palakkad challenging the judgment and decree of the trial court. The learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the 1st defendant.

5. Heard Sri.K.Ramakumar, the learned Senior Counsel for the 1st defendan