Ratio-Suit barred under section 108.

The above revision has been filed against the order of the lower Court dated 20th December, 1969 in O.S. No. 1022 of 1966 finding preliminary Issues 5 and 6 against the defendants and holding that the suit as framed is maintainable in the civil Court. 2. The facts giving rise to this revision may be briefly set out. The plaintiffs as the descendants and great grandsons of Karuppa Naicker and Mari Naicker filed the above suit in a representative capacity for a declaration that they are alone entitled to celebrate the annual festival in the suit temple which was to commence on 22nd December, 1966, and for an injunction restraining the defendants representing the Nattu Goundars of the village in which the temple is situate and other neighbouring villages from interfering with the plaintiffs’ celebrating the festival. The said relief was claimed by the plaintiffs on the basis that the suit temple is an ancient temple, that originally their ancestors, Karuppa Naicker and Mari Naicker, were the hereditary poojaris and trustees, that after their death the trusteeship and poojariship vested always with the family of the said Karuppa Naicker and Mari Naicker, that the temple has got inam lands which are being enjoyed by the plaintiffs as the descendants of Karuppa Naicker and Mari Naicker, that the patta for those inam lands always stood in the name of the members of the plaintiffs’ family, and that the title deeds for the inam lands have been issued and confirmed by the Inam Commissioner in the name of their ancestors. They also alleged that the annual festival for the above said temple was by mamool and custom celebrated in the month of Margali and would last for three months till the end of Masi, that the temple itself is, therefore, called “Moonumasathu Mariamman temple”, that when the plaintiffs were arranging to conduct the festival for the year 1966 the defendants as representatives of Nattu Goundars of the area, with their wealth and influence and with the good backing of the other villagers in the locality were denying the plaintiffs’ right to conduct the festival and asserting that right in themselves. The plaintiffs had apprehended that the defendants with their status and their influence aimed to usurp their right to conduct the festival in the suit temple.

3. The plaintiffs’ claim was resisted by the defendants on the ground that Karuppa Naicker and Mari Naicker, the ancestors of the plaintiffs were neither trustees nor poojaris of the suit temple, that they used to be appointed as poojaris by the Kaniyachikarars of the suit temple who were in management, that neither Karuppa Naicker nor Mari Naicker nor their descendants had any hereditary right for the poojariship or the trusteeship in the temple, that there were other poojaris for the suit temple, that the trusteeship and poojariship did not vest in the family of the said two persons, and that the inam has been confirmed in favour of the deity by the Inam Commissioner and not in favour of the said two persons as alleged. They also claimed that the deity is of the Nattu Vellala Goundars residing in certain villages nearby, that the administration of the temple and its properties had always vested from time immemorial in the Nattu Vellala Goundars of the above said villages that defendants 1 to 4 and four other persons were actually in management of the temple and its properties as representatives of the Nattu Vellala Goundars residing in those villages, that the family of the said 8 persons had been managing the suit temple and its properties as hereditary kaniyachikarars from the inception of the temple and that no outsider had ever managed the temple and its properties. They also alleged that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the temple lands, and that they have actually been in possession of the temple lands all these years by paying the kist for the same from time immemorial and collecting lease amounts from their lessees. The defendants also denied tha