1. Challenging the judgment and decree made in A.S.Nos.9 of 2008 and 93 of 2007 by the Trainee District Judge cum Additional Sub Judge, Tuticorin, reversing the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.182 of 2002 by the District Munsif Court, Srivaikuntam, these appeals have been filed.

2. Facts which are leading to disposal of the appeals are as follows:-

Appellants 1 to 4 are defendants 7 to 10. 1strespondent is the plaintiff. Respondents 2 to 9 are defendants 3 to 6 and 11 to 14. The plaintiff/Thirugnanasambandam, filed a suit in O.S.No.204 of 1992 (lateron renumbered as O.S.No.182 of 2002) on the file of the District Munsif, Srivaikumdam, praying for a declaration and permanent injunction with respect to his rights of poojariship attached with emoluments, by turns, commencing from 1stThai and future turns among the plaintiff and defendants 3 to 14, in respect of the suit temple namely, Shri.Vembadi Sudalaimadasamy Temple and Pechiamman Temple, situated in Kottakurichi Village in Srivaikundam Taluk.

3. For easy understanding, family Genealogy is given below:-

GENEALOGICAL TREE

“IMAGE”

4. That on 02.05.1934, under Ex.B44, the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department (hereinafter referred to as “HR&CE) declared the suit temple as a family temple and exempted it from the HR & CE Act. The order shows the administration of the suit temple, poojariship and trusteeship vest with the family of the plaintiff's grandfather, senior Deivathadia Pillai, who is the founder of the suit temple. Ex.B23 is the scheme framed under HR & CE Act, in O.A.No.337/34. As per the scheme, the Commissioner of HR & CE has to appoint a committee of three trustees to maintain the properties of the temple. One of the trustees is to be appointed from the eldest member of the hereditary trustee family and other two trustees from the public. Among the three, one has to be elected as an executive trustee to manage the affairs of the temple.

5. It is not in dispute that the founder of the temple, senior Deivathadia Pillai, had two sons, namely, Muthukaruppa Pillai and Vaikunda Ramasamy Pillai. The founder was managing the temple, till he died in the year 1938. Thereafter, till 1942, both the sons of Deivathadiapillai were jointly enjoying and managing the temple, by doing poojas and receiving offerings from the devotees. However, on 12.12.1942, under Ex.B48, they entered into an agreement with regard to the rights in the suit temple and they agreed to manage the suit temple in turn system, commencing from the month of Thai. Accordingly, both of them had been enjoying the temple in the alternative years till 1963.

6. On 06.07.1963, the said Vaikunda Ramasamy Pillai executed a registered settlement deed, in favour of his wife, Ganthimathi Ammal, transferring all his rights in the temple in her name. The same was not accepted by his brother Muthukaruppa Pillai and his son Deivathadia Pillai (D1). Therefore, Ganthimathi Ammal instituted a suit in O.S.No.54 of 1964 before the District Munsif Court, Tuticorin, against Muthukarupppa Pillai and his son Deivathadia Pillai, for injunction, on the basis of the settlement deed dated 06.07.1963. The trial court decreed the suit on 29.01.1965. Muthukaruppa Pillai contested the suit stating that as per the recognised custom and usage, the eldest male member alone is entitled for trustee of the temple. But however, the contention was rejected by the trial court and the suit was decreed, holding that the arrangements between Muthukaruppa Pillai and Vaikundaramasamy Pillai, dated 12.12.1942 and the settlement deed dated 06.07.1963 are true and valid. It was further held that the eldest son alone is not entitled to temple right and the poojari right coupled with emoluments is heritable and partiable.

7. Though in the first appeal in A.S.No.74 of 1965, the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.54 of 1964 was reversed, but eventually, in S.A.No.268/1966, the High Court has upheld the findings of the trial court, by its judgment d