The central legal point established is the necessity of approaching the authority under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 in property disputes involving temple authorities and individuals, and the importance of seeking appropriate relief under the Act.

1. This second appeal is focused by the plaintiff, inveighing the judgement and decree dated 31.01.2012 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruchengode in A.S.No.29 of 2011 in confirming the judgment and decree dated 03.12.2010 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Tiruchengode in O.S.No.21 of 2005.

2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus:

a] The plaintiff filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:

To pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants by

a) granting permanent injunction against the defendants and their supporters restraining them from in any way interfering or disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff or constructing shed in the suit property oralternatively direct the defendants to deliver the possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs within a specific time, failing which effect the delivery of the suit property through process of court to the plaintiff*

b) directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as damage to the plaintiff; and

c) to award costs

* plaint amended as per order in I.A.No.315/2010 dated 21.07.2010.

(extracted as such)

b] The warp and woof of the averments as found exemplified in the plaint would run thus:

The suit property described herein belongs to the plaintiff community known as Molasiyar Nattugounder Samugham comprised of more than 5000 families, residing in Namakkal, Salem and Erode Districts. Tiruchengodu Arthanareeswarar Temple is a famous one and the aforesaid community people from time immemorial have been performing poojas and kattalai during annual Vaikasi festival. The worshippers of the plaintiff community keep on staying in the suit property and doing pooja to Lord Arthanareeswara and other deities. The plaintiff community people are doing fifth day Kattalai during Vaikasi festival at the suit property. At that time, Urchavamoorthi of the Lord Arthanareeswarar, Arulmigu Sengottuvelavar and Arumighu Athikesava Perumal would be brought to the suit property and poojas are being performed. While so, at one time the Dharmakartha of the said Arthanareeswarar Temple requested the plaintiff to permit him to store the cement bags and other materials for constructing temple Gopuram and magnanimously that was agreed to. [Other details set out in the plant are not germane for deciding this second appeal]. However, D3 tried to disturb the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit property and he attempted to demolish the compound wall of it. In view of the disturbance given by D3, the suit was came to be filed.

c] Per contra, refuting and contradicting the averments/allegations in the plaint, the Executive Officer of D3 temple filed the written statement, the warp and woof of the same would run thus:

The plaintiff community is not in possession of the suit property, but it is in the possession of D3 Temple. The suit filed, as such, is not maintainable.

Accordingly, D3 would pray for the dismissal of the suit.

d] Issues were set down for trial, wherein on the plaintiff's side, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On the defendants' side, on behalf of D3's temple, one Gurusamy examined himself as DW1 and marked Exs.B1 to B18.

e] Ultimately, the trial court partly decreed the suit upholding the right of the plaintiff community to perform fifth day Kattalai during the festival at the suit property and the rest of the claim was dismissed. As against which, the appeal was filed; whereupon the first appellate court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court; however, giving liberty to the plaintiff to file the suit for declaration and for consequential reliefs.

f] Challenging and impugning the judgment and decr