Bellie, J.

1. The question in this second appeal is whether the decree granted by the first appellate Court is sustainable in law. The first defendant Executive Officer, Arulmigu Kallalagar Devasthanam, Alagar Koil, Madurai is the appellant herein.

2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that they are entitled to the suit mandapam and they are also entitled to possession of the appurtenant 42 cents and to perform mandagapadi every year during Chitra festival. As a consequential relief they prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from fencing around the Mandapam and the appurtenant land and for a mandatory injunction directing the first respondent-Executive Officer to take the Lord Sri Kallalagar to the Mandapam during every Chitra festival.

3. The defendants denied that the plaintiffs are entitled to the Mandapam or possession of the appurtenant land and contended that the mandapam and the appurtenant land has been in possession and use of the Devasthanam and the plaintiffs are not entitled to the consequential relief of injunctions prayed for.

4. The Trial Court (District Munsif, Melur) on consideration of the evidence adduced held that the plaintif