A poojari or archakar cannot acquire proprietary rights in the lands of the temple to which the grant was made because they should be deemed to have been in possession in a fiduciary capacity and as such could not claim adverse possession.

R. BANUMATHI, J.

1. Being aggrieved by judgment dated 20.2.2008 decreeing the Suit – C.S. No. 914 of 1989 filed by the 1st respondent/ plaintiff directing the defendants to deliver possession of the suit property, defendants 3, 4 (appellants 1 and 2) and 43 to 45 (appellants 3 to 5) have preferred this appeal.

2. The suit property in S. Nos. 2364/1 and 2364/2 measuring 22 grounds and 282 sq.ft. In Pidariyar Koil Street, Gopathy Narayanaswamy Chetty Street, Mylapore, Chennai belongs to plaintiff temple – Arulmigu Kolavizhiamman temple. The present case is a typical case as to how the Poojaris (Archagars), who came in for performing poojas and as in-charge of the temple seek to claim right of ownership in the vast extent of very valuable property of the temple as their private land. In the earlier proceedings before the Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner, the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, the appellants have fought out making a claim that the temple is their private temple and were also unsuccessful in the subsequent proceedings claiming themselves as hereditary trustees. The appellants and their ancestors, who claimed to be in possession of the temple properties for performance of poojas in the temple, are squatting on the property by leasing the property to defendants 5 to 41 and collecting rent from the tenants and enriching themselves. Now they are fighting out the litigation through their power of attorney – D. Kothandan (D.W.I). In the light of the innumerable documents and evidence adduced by the 1st respondent/plaintiff temple proving the title of the temple, we proceed to consider the rival contentions of the parties.

3. Averments in the plaint:- The plaintiff temple is an ancient temple. The land bearing S. No. 2364 measuring 1 cawnie, 7 grounds and 2306 sq.ft. was given as a grant by the Government to the plaintiff temple. One Senji Archagar, the grand father of Defendant No. 4 was the Poojari (Archagar) and de facto trustee of the plaintiff temple. He was in-charge and in management of the said temple and Its properties. After his death in 1928, one Rajoo Archagar, the father of defendants 1 to 3, his son Doraisamy Archagar and Shanmugam Archagar and their cousins were Poojaris and de facto trustees of the temple and were in-charge of the management of the temple and its properties.

4. Since the said Rajoo Archagar and others were acting against the interests of the temple, the Assistant Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, Madras by order dated 4.8.1958 passed in D.Dis.6940/57 appointed one C.P. Munuswami Naicker as the trustee of the temple and directed him to take charge of the temple and its properties. In the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., the appellants claimed that the temple is their private temple and their claim was negatived. In yet another proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner, the appellants were unsuccessful in their claim that they are the hereditary trustees.

5. Munuswami Naicker and the trustees appointed subsequently could not succeed in their attempt to recover possession of the temple properties. Rajoo Archagar and others filed O.S. No. 27 of 1959 on the file of City Civil Court, Madras for declaration that they were the absolute owners of the temple and Its properties and for permanent injunction restraining the said Munuswami Naicker and others from interfering with their management of the temple and its properties. On 9.8.1961, the said suit was dismissed as not pressed. The plaintiff represented, by the then trustees filed O.S. No. 2191 of 1971 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras against Rajoo Archagar and others for possession of a portion of the land bearing S. No. 2364/1. The said suit was withdrawn on 19.12.1973 with liberty to file fresh suit on the same cause of action. In July 1979, the management of the temple was amalgamated with the management of Arulmighu Kapaleeswarar temple, Mylapore, Madras-4. In or about 1964, S. No. 23