Suit filed by temple maintainable.

1. The above appeal suit is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3.5.1980, made in O.S.No.61 of 1976 by the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, thereby declaring the title of the plaintiff to the plaint ‘A’ schedule property and also ordering the recovery of possession of the plaint ‘B’ schedule property along with past and future damages.

2. The above suit has been filed by the respondent herein for declaration that the suit properties belong to the plaintiff and for recovery of possession of the plaint ‘B’ schedule property and for recovery of past and future damages.

3. The plaint averments, in short, are that the plaint ‘A’ schedule property, part of which is the ‘B’ schedule property was belonging to late Lakshmi Ammal, wife of Sankara Narayana Pillai, Tiruchendur, as her self acquisition; that she was pious and intensely devoted to the plaintiff-deity, that herself and her husband were doing religious services, not only the plaintiff-deity, but also for the Vinayakar Temple, located at Sabapathiapuram Street, Tiruchendur; that they are issueless; that even after the death of her husband, the said Lakshmi Ammal continued her services to the plaintiff-deity; that her intention was to dedicate the plaint ‘A’ schedule property to the temple, to do the services that she was already performing and further to do her own annual ‘shardha’ after her death, so that the services might be performed in perpetuity; that with that intention, she executed a registered Will on 7.7.1943 enjoining inter alia the Executive Officer of the plaintiff-temple to enjoy the plaint ‘A’ schedule property after her death and perform the services that she was already doing; that one Ponnusamy Pillai and his wife Mangaiarkarasi, who are related to the said Lakshmi Ammal, became her tenants in one of the portions of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property and they took genuine interest in her welfare, further helping in her performance of the services; that then she executed a second and thereafter a third Will in supersession of the previous ones, first apportioning the performance of services and enjoyment of the plaint ‘A’ schedule properties between the temple authorities on one hand and the said Ponnusamy Pillai and Mangaiarkarasi and herself on the other hand, by her second Will and then enjoining the said Ponnusamy Pillai and Mangaiarkarasi both to enjoy the ‘A’ schedule property, by her third Will, and also to perform the services, after her death.

4. The further averments of the plaint are that the said Lakshmi Ammal also executed a Registered Settlement Deed dated 24.2.1959 in favour of the said Ponnusamy Pillai and Mangayarkarsi bequeathing the plaint ‘A’ schedule property to them, to be enjoyed by them jointly with her, till her lifetime and after her death, by them absolutely, subject to the performance of the services to the Deity and the annual ‘shradha’ for her and accordingly, the said Lakshmi Ammal, Ponnusamy Pillai and Mangaiarkarasi were enjoying the suit properties; that thereafter, the said Lakshmi Ammal, again wanted to give effect to her original intention of dedicating the plaint ‘A’ schedule property absolutely to the plaintiff-deity and put the Deity in possession and enjoyment of them enjoying on the Deity performance of the services including the ‘shardha’ of her husband and herself, after her death and expressed her desire to the said Ponnusamy Pillai and his wife Mangaiyarkarai and wanted them to execute a deed of cancellation of the earlier Settlement Deed, dated 24.2.1959, for which, they readily agreed and executed the Registered Deed of cancellation on 2.11.1972, releasing all their rights under the Settlement Deed dated 24.2.1959 and further making the said Lakshmi Ammal as the sole owner and possessor of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property.

5. The further averments of the plaint are that thereafter, the said Lakshmi Ammal executed a registered deed of irrevocable settlement of the plaint ‘A’ sched