The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and the transferability of hereditary rights, specifically in relation to the validity of a Will granting pooja rights.

1.These two appeals are filed by the unsuccessful appellants in AS.No.24/1989 and AS.No.25.1989, on the file of the Principal District Judge at Erode. The appellants in AS.No.24/1989 are the plaintiffs in OS.No.24/1985, and the appellants in AS.No.25/1989 are the defendants 5 to 8 in OS.No.25/1985, on the file of the Sub Court, Dharapuram.

2.For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were arrayed in OS.No.24/1985.

3.The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that they are entitled to perform poojas for 32 days, in Arulmigu Nilambur Kaliamman Temple, as an hereditary right and also the right derived, under the Will dated 22.11.1972 and the same should not be interfered with by the defendants.

4.The case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs' father Manikka Andi was performing poojas for the suit temple for a period of 30 years hereditarily and they were also enjoying the tenancy right of the temple lands and were doing services to the suit temple and patta was issued to their father under the Inam Abolition Act. One Cauvery Ammal had the right to perform pooja for 32 days in a year, to the suit temple and the plaintiffs' father, even during the life time of Cauvery Ammal, was performing the poojas for 32 days in a year. In order to avoid any manner of possible claim to the said right of performing pooja, by hereditarily, Cauvery Ammal, by her Will dated 22.11.1972, bequeathed the same to the plaintiffs and therefore, they are entitled to perform pooja in the suit temple, as per the Will and also by hereditary right. While so, one Manikka Andi and others filed a suit in OS.No.411/1984 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Dharapuram, with a view to prevent the plaintiffs from enjoying the property. They also colluded with erstwhile Executive Officer and also prevented them from handing over the entire property to the plaintiffs' shareholders. The plaintiffs have also filed a suit in OS.No.790/1984, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Dharapuram and also obtained an order of injunction against Manikka Andi and others. At the instigation of the defendants 2 to 7, the 1st defendant was likely to pass an order and therefore, the plaintiffs have filed the suit.

5.The case of the defendants, as stated in the written statement, is as follows:-

The plaintiffs' suit to declare the pooja right of Cauvery Ammal, is not maintainable. The right of performing pooja held by Cauvery Ammal was sold to the 1st defendant's father Manikka Andi on 27.10.1945. Pursuant to the same, the father of the defendants 2 and 3 filed a suit in OS.No.284/1945 before the District Munsif Court, Dharapuram and the same was decreed and as per the said decree, Cauvery Ammal was entitled to enjoy the land during her life time only and the said decree was passed on 23.11.1946 and the said decree is not binding upon the right of Kaliandi to recover possession of the suit property. The administration of the suit temple has come under the administration of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act and the poojas have been performed by several families by hereditary right. Cauvery Ammal died on 5.1.1984. The defendants 2 to 7 and one Doraisamy and others are the heirs and the Tahsildar, Dharapuram had also issued a legal heir certificate on 30.10.1984 to that effect and the same cannot be objected to by the plaintiffs. Based upon the said certificate, the 1st defendant enquired into the matter and passed an order on 12.12.1984, by which, the defendants 2 to 7 and Doraisamy were given the right to perform poojas and the said order cannot be questioned by the plaintiffs. Poojas are conducted as per the rights established and also confirmed by the 1st defendant in its order. The defendants 2 to 7 and others have already filed a suit in OS.No.411/1984, before the District Munsif Court, Dharapuram and the same was pending and the plaintiffs are the defendants in the said suit. The plaintiffs are not performing poojas in the