The ownership of the temple property, validity of lease arrangements, and lack of evidence to substantiate the appellant's claim were central to the judgment.

1. The 1st respondent herein/temple represented by its Executive Officer filed a suit in O.S. No.184 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruthuraipoondi, as against Defendant No.4/appellant herein and three others with a prayer for permanent injunction restraining the appellant herein/D4 from putting up further construction in the suit property, mandatory injunction to demolish the superstructure already put up by her with 46 pillars and for recovery of Rs.656.25 ps. from defendants-1 to 3 towards arrears of rent, by pleading that the suit property in Survey R.S. No.184/5 measuring 10 cents punja land belongs to the plaintiff/temple and by lease deed dated 17.08.1971, it was leased out to one Ayyathurai Chettiar, father of defendants-1 to 3, for the purpose of construction of residential house with the terms and conditions as mentioned therein. After the demise of the said Ayyathurai Chettiar, his legal heirs/defendants 1 to 3 are in enjoyment of the said property. While so, the 4th defendant made a claim that she purchased the suit property from one Ummakani Ammal (wife of late Muhammad Abul Hasan) and others, whereupon, the plaintiff/temple filed a suit in O.S. No.275/96 seeking injunction to restrain the authorities from registering any sale deed in respect of the suit property. Late Ayyathurai Chettair was paying the lease rent for which receipts have been issued by the Temple and the 4th defendant, who is a stranger, has no claim over the property even in the capacity of a lease holder as there was no sub-lease or any other contract of tenancy in her favour regarding the suit property. Since there is arrear in payment of lease rent, defendants 1 to 3 the legal heirs of Ayyathurai Chettiar are added as necessary parties. Without any authorization, D4 started construction work over the suit property and laid 46 concrete pillars. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that D4 is restrained from proceeding further with the unauthorised construction by grant of ad-interim injunction. Further, in order to demolish the already erected concrete pillars 46 in number, mandatory injunction may be granted. It is specifically added that the plaintiff/Executive Officer having been appointed by the HR & CE Board to administer the plaintiff/temple, in proper representative capacity, he filed the suit with the prayer as mentioned above.

2. Defendant No.4 filed a counter affidavit stating that the Executive Officer is put to strict proof that he, in the representative capacity, filed the suit and that the suit property belongs to the Temple. Originally, the suit property was enjoyed by Ayyathurai Chettiar and after his demise, his legal heirs sold the property to one late Muhammad Abul Hasan. Thereafter, on 22.07.1996, the 4th defendant purchased it from the legal heirs of late Muhammad Abul Hasan. The said transaction was challenged by the plaintiff by filing O.S. No.275/96 before the District Munsif Court, Thiruthurappoondi. Though the suit land was originally owned by the plaintiff/temple, after the Inam Abolition Act, the plaintiff had no right whatsoever over the suit property. For more than a decade, Muhammad Abul Hasan and his forefather were residing therein without any interruption. Therefore, the sale transaction from which D4 derived ownership over the property being valid, the plaintiff now cannot claim ownership. Nowhere in the plaint, the plaintiff did mention as to how the temple derived ownership over the property and how patta was obtained. Even accepting for the sake of argument that the temple has right over the property, at best, they can collect lease amount as being done in case of other temple lands in the vicinity for construction over such lands and cannot straight away seek for demolition of the constructed portion nearing completion. Since the grant of injunction would result in great prejudice to the 4th defendant, it is prayed that the suit may be dismissed.

3. The trial court, after c