Bellie, J.

1. The plaintiff who won his suit in the trial Court but lost it in the first appellate court has preferred this second appeal.

2. The suit relates to Archaka right in a temple. According to the plaintiff his family has been doing archaka service in the Selvavinayagar Temple situate at Market St., Panrutti, from time immemorial and he himself has been doing that service for past 40 years first as an agent of his brother Muthu Gurukkal and then in his own right and he was paid a monthly salary of Rs. 18. He was also getting not less than Rs. 50 per mensem by way of kanikkais from devotees and Kattalaidars. While so the first defendant who is looking after the affairs of the temple without any reason pre vented him from doing his services by the end of Thai, 1977 and appointed the second defendant in his place. He sent a notice to the defendants on 1.3.1977 for which the first defendant sent a reply with untenable contentions. In these allegations the plaintiff has prayed for declaration that he has right to do service in the temple as hereditary archaka, and to injunct the first defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs performing the said right or alternativel