Maintainability of the suit filed by one of the trustees.

The defendants in O S. No. 327 of 1974 on the file of the District Munsif, Devakottai who have been unsuccessful in both the Courts below are the appellants.

2. The respondents herein filed a representative suit for a permanent injunction restraining the appellants herein from interfering with the conduct of the festival in Thoothu Ayyanar Singamuga Karuppar and Kaliamman temple at Keerani village. The plaintiff’s case is that the villagers of Keerani village have been performing the utsavams like Mahasivarathiri, Deepavali and Kuthirai Yeduppu in the said temple by collecting subscriptions from the villagers, that the temple has been built by the Keerani Villagers, that the festival consists of performance of a drama and of sacrificing ram and cock, that recently the defendants who are the neighbouring villagers and who have no manner of right to interfere with the performance of the festival or the giving of honours to the trustees have joined together and have been creating trouble from 12th July, 1974, and obstructing the conduct of the festival and the proper upkeep of the temple and conduct of utsavam, drama and sacrifice of ram and cock and hence the plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit for an injunction as set out above.

3. The defendants resisted the suit contending that the suit is a representative capacity is not maintainable, that one of the trustees of the temple has not joined as the plaintiff, that the right claimed by the plaintiffs is not sustainable, that there are two sets of worshippers in relation to the temple, one set being called Melavattam and the other set being called Keelavattam, that the people living in the west of Keerani Village are called Melavattam worshippers and the people living in the village east of the temple were called Keelavattam worshippers, that the plaintiffs do not have the exclusive right to conduct the festival and the utsavams in the temple, that the temple was built and Kumbhabhishekam was performed from con-tributions from both Melavattam and Keelavattam people and not by Keerani people alone, that the defendants belong to Keelavattam, that they did not interfere with the daily routine poojas and the conduct of festivals, that after Melavattam people offer worship through their poojari, Keelavattam people worship through their own poojari and that, therefore, the Keelavattam people also are entitled to conduct worship with their own poojari and also conduct the festival side by side with the plaintiffs. The defendants also stated that there are two poojaris in the temple, one acting at the instance of Melavattam people and the other acting at the instance of the Keelavattam people, that archanas are done by Melavattam poojari for Melavattam people and by Keelavattam Poojari for Keelavattam people and that the defendants are also exercising their right to offer worship, collection of hundials and doing Kuthirai Yeduppu festival from time immemorial. Therefore the plaintiffs have no cause of action as against the defendants.

4. The trial Court held that the suit is maintainable and that the civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the plaintiffs’ right to manage the temple and conduct the festivals not having been disputed by the defendants and the defendants not having established their right to conduct the festival alongside the plaintiffs with the assistance of a separate poojari, the respondents are entitled to the issue of an injunction. In this view, the suit was decreed.

5. The matter was taken in appeal to the lower appellate Court and the lower appellate Court confirmed the decision of the trial Court substantially. The lower appellate Court has, however, modified the decree of the trial Court so as to protect the defendants’ right to worship the deity in the suit temple as ordinary worshippers without any let or hindrance with the plaintiff’s celebrations of festival. The second appeal is directed against the said concurrent judgments of