Provisions of Section 108 is no bar for maintainability of the suit.

K. Venkataswami, J.

1. The 5th defendant in O.S. No. 112 of 1979, on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Rasipuram is the appellant before me. It appears the suit was filed originally in the Court of the District Munsif, Namakkal as O.S. No. 167 of 1977.

2. Two questions are raised before me by the counsel on both sides as arising out of the judgments and decrees of the courts below. They are, (1) Whether the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 112 of 1979 are entitled to appropriate the coconut bunches and the plantain bunches offered by the worshippers during annual festival in the month of Panguni to the deity of the suit temple, and (2) whether the suit is barred under Section 108 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.

3. The suit temple is Sri Thulukka Choodamani Amman, an ancient temple at Pudupatti village, Rasipuram Taluk. The plaintiffs, four in number, representing the hereditary poojaries of the said suit temple sued the defendants for declaration that they are entitled to receive the tender coconuts and plantain fruits offered to the temple by the worshipping public, at the time of annual festival in the month of Panguni and to restrain the defendants 1 to 5 from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of that right.

4. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the Poojaries of the temple are not paid any salaries or 'Paditharam'. The suit temple itself has no income apart from the voluntary contributions given by the worshippers. There used to be celebrated from time immemorial an annual festival for 8 days beginning from Sunday immediately prior to the last Wednesday of Panguni month every year. During such annual festival, people from several nearby villages congregate and used to offer several things to the plaintiffs like tender coconuts and plantain fruits in bunches as a token of their respect to them. The plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-title used to accept such offerings and share the money value of such offerings by selling the same. This practice was there from time immemorial and the defendants 1 to 3 who are the hereditary trustees, with the help of the Executive Officer, the 5th defendant, for the first time, interfered with such practice and leased out the right to collect the offerings in the year 1977. Hence the present suit.

5. Defendants 1 to 3 have filed a common written statement adopted by defendants 4 and 5. It is the case of the defendants that the offerings by the worshippers during the annual festival were not to the Poojaries, but to the temple/ deity and, therefore, the plaintiffs cannot claim right to appropriate them. The defendants do not admit the claim of the plaintiffs that from time immemorial, the Poojaries of the temple used to appropriate such offerings themselves. They have also contended that the suit itself is not maintainable, in view of Section 108 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act.

6. The plaintiffs have examined to substantiate their case six witnesses of whom P.W.I is the 4th plaintiff. The other five witnesses of the plaintiffs are independent witnesses drawn from cross-sections of the society. The defendants have examined in all four witnesses of whom D.W.I is the 5th defendant and D.W.2 Is the 1st defendant. In addition to them, two more witnesses were examined. Both the parties have filed documents also to support their respective stand.

7. The trial court, on a consideration of the case, disbelieving the evidence of the plaintiffs' witnesses and consequently believing the evidence of the D.Ws. held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the offerings of the worshippers at the time of annual festival in the shape of tender coconut bunches and plantain bunches. The learned District Munsif also held that the temple alone is entitled to these offerings. On the question of maintainability of the suit, agreeing with the contention raised on behalf of the defendants, the learned District Munsif held that th