The appellant/plaintiff, though was successful before the trial Court in getting a decree for injunction, failed before the first appellate court, when the same was challenged by the defendant and the result is the second appeal.

2. The suit property measuring 78 cents which is equivalent to 0.31.0 hectare, in Survey No.19/2 situated at Kuthapakkam village belongs to the plaintiff/appellant temple. According to the plaintiff, this property was in the possession and enjoyment of Kothandapani as lessee and on his surrender on 30.3.1990, the plaintiff temple is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property in its own right. It seems, the defendant, who has no right or interest in the suit property, attempted to trespass into the suit property, with a view to grab the temple property and in order to prevent the trespass and to protect the possession of the suit property, a suit has been filed by the temple, for permanent injunction.

3. The respondent/defendant admitting the title of the plaintiff temple in respect of the suit property, opposed the case of the plaintiff, denying the allegations in the plaint and setting up lease hold right in his favour, claiming possession