The civil court does not have jurisdiction to decide disputes regarding honours in religious institutions. Such matters fall under the purview of the Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner under Section 63(e) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.

Challenge in this second appeal is to the concurrent judgments passed in Original Suit No.144 of 2003 by the District Munsif Court, Melur and in Appeal Suit No.127 of 2007 by the Principal Subordinate Court, Madurai.

2. The respondents herein as plaintiffs have instituted Original Suit No.144 of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur, for the reliefs of declaration and perpetual injunction, wherein the present appellants have been shown as defendants.

3. The averments made in the plaint are that the plaintiffs and defendants are descendants of one Chinnan Pitchan Vagayara. The plaintiffs and defendants are entitled to get third honour with regard to receiving of sacred ash, sacred water and also untying of bull after sacrificing a scapegoat in Periya Panaiyoor Ayyanar Temple. The first honour belongs to Thanikodi Ambalam. The second honour belongs to Mandakan Ambalam. The plaintiffs 1 to 4 are the descendants of the first heir of Chinnan Pitchan by name Lakshmanan. The plaintiffs 5 to 8 are descendants of the second heir of Chinnan Pitchan by name Chinnaiya. The defendants 1 to 3 are also descendants of fourth heir of Chinnan Pitchan. The 9th plaintiff is the descendant of Palani Ambalam. Prior to 20 years, a tussle has arisen with regard to receiving of honour in Periya Panaiyoor Ayyanar Temple and the same has been settled to the effect that the first heir of Chinnan Pitchan Ambalam viz., Lakshmanan is entitled to receive honour for one year. The second heir of Chinnan Pitchan Ambalam viz., Chinnaiya is entitled to get honour for one year. The third heir of Chinnan Pitchan Ambalam viz., Palani Ambalam is entitled to get honour for one year and the same has been fixed on the basis of rotation. The honour mentioned in the plaint is not with reference to a separate person and the same is attached to Chinnan Pitchan Vagayara. On 05.07.2003 Kumbabisheham has been conducted in the suit temple. The defendants 1 to 3 have made tussle with regard to honour and due to that a panchayat has been convened on 04.07.2003. But, no compromise has been effected. Since the defendants are having political influence, they refused the honour of the plaintiffs. Now the defendants are making arrangements to disturb the plaintiffs from receiving their honour in the suit temple. Under the said circumstances, the present suit has been instituted praying to declare that the plaintiffs are entitled to get their honour in the suit temple by means of rotation and also for passing permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the rights of the plaintiffs.

4. In the written statement filed on the side of the defendants, it is averred that both the plaintiffs and defendants are descendants of Chinnan Pitchan Ambalam. The plaintiffs have wrongly mentioned about Vagai and Thanikodi Ambalam who belongs to Nadu Vagai is entitled to get first honour. Mandakan Ambalam who belongs to Mela Vagai is entitled to get second honour and the third honour belongs to Chinnan Pitchan Ambalam of Keela Vagai. One Chinnaiah Amabalam is the descendant of Chinnan Pitchan Ambalam. The second defendant is the father of the third defendant and the defendants 1 & 4 are the brothers son of the second defendant. In the year 1961, a dispute has arisen between Chinnaiah Ambalam and others, and Lakshmana Ambalam and Palani Ambalam and subsequently, a panchayat has been convened and in the said panchayat, it is resolved that Chinnaiah Ambalam is entitled to receive honour from the suit temple and subsequently a dispute has arisen which resulted in the institution of a criminal case. From the year 1961 onwards, the defendants have excluded Lakshmanan Ambalam and Palani Ambalam and therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to get the alleged honour from the suit temple. There is no merit in the suit and the same deserves dismissal.

5. On the basis of the divergent pleadings raised on either side, the trial Court has framed necessary issues and