Right on basis of which share is claimed not established.

The Plaintiffs, before the Courts below, having filed the suit for certain reliefs, failed in their efforts concurrently and the result is the Second Appeal.

2. The plaintiffs who are functioning as Archakas in the defendant/respondent Temple, have filed the suit for declaration, that they are entitled to half share in the fees levied by the Temple, for any form of worship, service, ritual ceremony rendered in the Institution for the benefit of the worshipers, after deducting the expenses, with the consequential relief of a mandatory injunction, directing the Management of the defendant, Temple to fix the share of the plaintiffs at 50% of the total fee levied, on the grounds that their predecessors interest have been officiating as hereditary 'Pooja Sthanikamdars' and 'Archakas' from time immemorial which was inherited by them, being the lineal descent, that the right of the plaintiffs as Archakas and Stanikamdars of the renowned Temple is a hereditary right which cannot be curtailed by the defendant, by taking any action which would amount to violation of the property right, that the Board of Trustees of the defendant Temple though initiated some proceedings by way of resolution, originally, the same was dropped and thereafter in 1970 they have introduced ticket system for certain kind of poojas which was questioned in O.S.No.21 of 1970 on the file of Sub-Court, Karaikal, which was dismissed, not adjudicating the dispute between the plaintiffs and temple fully, that the introduction of the Pondicherry Hindu Religious Institutions Act, which came into force in 1975 cannot have any effect eradicating the hereditary Trusteeship, which is safeguarded under the Act, also and that the plaintiffs being non-salaried Archakas, their claim of sharing the net income on equal basis is just and proper.

3. The respondent/defendant temple questioned the rights claimed by the plaintiffs, stating that the plaintiffs are not the hereditary Archakas or hereditary pooja Sthanikamadars, that they are mere functionaries in the service of the temple subject to its disciplinary control, that the same kind of relief was already claimed, negatived and therefore, the suit is barred by resjudicata, that every Archakar in the service of the temple Devasthanam is only part-time, casual and temporary nature, who is not at all entitled to claim equal share in the income, that the alleged right claimed by the plaintiffs cannot be described as property right and it is only a mere post, that the plaintiffs having already filed a suit for declaration of their hereditary right, failing the same, they ought to have prayed for in this suit, for declaration of their right and in the absence of such declaration, the suit is not maintainable, that the Court has no jurisdiction and that the Board of Trustees have powers, right to determine such rates and charges for each kind of ticket and to determine the rate and charges, payable there from to the Archakas which cannot be questioned by the plaintiffs, who are all employed for specific purpose, not having any other right as incorrectly claimed.

4. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court had framed as many as six issues, reflecting the case and counter. The learned Trial Judge, after evaluating the materials placed before him, came to the conclusion that the present suit is not barred by resjudicata , that the plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove their status as hereditary Archakas or hereditary Sthanikamadars and that they are entitled to payment as 'Gurukkal' for the service rendered by them, subject to other disciplinary action also and therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief in the suit.

5. The plaintiffs, aggrieved by the decree and judgement of the trial court in O.S.No.136 of 1986 on the file of the Principal District Munsiff, Karaikal, challenged the same before the Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikkal in A.S.No.52 of 1991, on various grounds.

6. The learned