This Second Appeal is filed against the concurrent findings of the fact. The suit claim relates to the rights of getting "Maalaimurai" in the Sikkandar Bhadusha Dharga at Thiruparankundram. Admittedly, the right is conferred upon the five branches decendants of one Val Khan. This management of Dargah is conferred on the five branches in turn.

2. According to the plaintiffs, branch Nos.2,3,4 and 5 gets 3/14th share each and the first branch has got 2/14 share. Barring a sum, which is reserved for religious purposes, the balance of income used to be shared between all the branches.

3. The first defendant, who is one of the members of the branches had transferred his right to the second defendant, who is not related to any other branches. This was objected to by the other branches, after the death of the first defendant, on the ground that female members in the Muslim Community have no right to manage the Dargah. Hence the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and consequent injunction not to interfere in his management of the Dharga on his turn.

4. The trial court found it against the plaintiffs and the Appellate Court also confirmed with it. Against that finding, the ninth defendant in the suit has preferred this Second Appeal.

5. The Ninth defendant is the settlee, who has obtained the rights from the second defendant. Inasmuch as it is a matter relating to performance of certain religious rites and also with respect to the management of the Dargah, which is confined to five branches of the family, that right can never go beyond the family. Hence the ninth defendant has no actionable claim.

6. The ninth defendant admittedly is not a natural born son of the first or second defendant. But he claims to be an "adopted" son of the second defendant. Under the Muslim Law, adoption is not recognised. Therefore, he cannot claim any right as an adopted son. Further, with respect to the same Dhargah, number of suits have been filed earlier and decisions have been rendered by the Courts. As early as in the year 1956 in O.S.No.273/56 the same rights were agitated; and again in O.S.No.550/1985, the very same point that a Muslim woman cannot perform any religious rites in the Dhargah was agitated. In the later suit, the decision in the earlier suit that female member of the family is also entitled to manage Dargah, though not personally, by employing male members was followed. That judgment is binding on the parties to the present suit also.

7. The only dispute before the Court in this suit was whether the female members of the Muslim Community has right to manage the Dargah. Inasmuch as the issue was decided with respect to the very same Dargah, in the earlier proceedings that operates as resjudicata in this suit. That issue therefore cannot be reagitated.

8. The Trial Court has rightly followed and decreed the suit and that was confirmed by the Appellate Court also. There is no reason to interfere with that in the Second Appeal. No substantial questions of law arise in this suit. Hence the Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs.