Right to use temple premises is not exclusive but only permissive.

Plaintiff in O.S.Nos.1378 of 1992 and 2832 of 1992 on the file of Principal District Munsifs Court, Trichy is the appellant in both the appeals.

2. In O.S.No.1378 of 1992, plaintiff seeks for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendant, its men, agents and servants from in any manner interfering with plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property wherein plaintiff is preparing and vending Prasadhams except by due process of law and for costs of the suit.

3. It is stated in the plaint that plaintiff became lessee of shop and Madapalli in the year 1967 and eversince he is in occupation of the same. According to him, suit property is leased out for preparing prasadhams which are to be placed before deity as neivedhyam and sold to worshippers. If worshippers want to prepare special prasadhams, plaintiff used to prepare the same and after placing the same before deity, given to the worshippers. Plaintiff is preparing Prasadhams in Madapalli and vending the same in the shop for the last 25 years. For the occupation of shop and Madapalli, plaintiff is paying rent at Rs.660 per year. Subsequently, it was raised and on the date of plaint, the rent was Rs.1,200 per month. Plaintiff has been in exclusive possession of the premises and he used to lock the premises after business hours and always keeping the keys with him. Transaction between plaintiff and defendant was that of landlord and tenant. According to him, every month, defendant is receiving rent for his occupation. It is said that at some point of time, there was a move to lease out the shop in public auction and resolution was also passed by Board of Trustees, but subsequently, the same was not implemented and plaintiff is continuing in occupation of the premises.

4. Reason for filing the suit was that an advertisement was made that the right to vending prasadhams will be given in public auction and by this process, temple authorities intended forcibly vacate plaintiff. According to plaintiff, defendant cannot take law into its hands and forcibly dispossess plaintiff. According to plaintiff, he is tenant of madapalli and vending shop and suit was therefore laid for the reliefs stated above.

5. In the detailed written statement, filed by defendant, it was contended that the right of plaintiff is only to vend prasadhams and no property was given to plaintiff and his right is only that of licensee. The neivedhyam will have to be prepared in the madapalli, which is part of the temple and it is only for that purpose, plaintiff has been allowed to use madapalli and neivedyams also will have to be sold only within the temple premises for which a place has been allotted. There was no intention on the part of defendant to give any immovable properties on lease and plaintiff has no possession over any portion of the same. It therefore prayed for dismissal of the suit.

6. O.S.No.2832 of 1992 was also filed by very same plaintiff. After filing O.S.No.1378 of 1992, plaintiff obtained ex parte order of injunction. It is seen that after hearing parties, order of injunction was also confirmed. Thereafter, defendant attempted to sell prasadam by preparing itself and sell the same in the temple premises. Subsequent suit was therefore laid to prohibit defendant that they shall not sell Prasadhams when plaintiff got exclusive right to sell the same.

7. In the suit also written statement was filed by defendant contending that the right of plaintiff has already been expired and his claim is only that of licensee and he has no right to prevent defendant from dealing with prasadhams. They prayed for dismissal of the suit.

8. Trial court by judgment dated 28. 1996 dismissed the suit in O.S.No.1378 of 1992. But as per judgment dated 27. 1996, trial court held that plaintiff is entitled to succeed in O.S.No.2832 of 1992. In O.S.No.2832 of 1992 trial court held that till disposal of O.S.No.1378 of 1992, plaintiff is entitled to injunction.

9. Bo