The central legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff, as the party in the management of the temple, was entitled to the relief of injunction, allowing renovation of the temple buildings.

1. Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri, in A.S.No.36 of 2012, dated 17.02.2014, confirming the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif, Dharmapuri, in O.S.No.92 of 2011, dated 09.07.2012.

2. Originally, the respondent herein/plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.92 of 2011 before the learned District Munsif, Dharmapuri, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from abstaining the plaintiff in any way from removing the broken parts of the buildings of suit Temple Mandapam, compound wall and the shops and renovate the same by way of new building and for costs. In the plaint, the plaintiff has averred that the suit property originally belonged to his ancestor and after the demise of his father, poojas and improvement of the Temple are done by the plaintiff. The Temple Mandapam and the compound walls including shops are in dilapidated condition and therefore, plaintiff attempted to renovate the same, which was restrained by defendants. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction. The defendants filed written statement denying the averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint. According to the defendants, the Temple in suit property is maintained by public in general and is a public Temple and hence, the suit is barred by Section 6(2) of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (H.R.& C.E.Act). The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit as prayed for on 09.07.2012. Against which, the defendants filed an appeal in A.S.No. 36 of 2012 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri. The Lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, thereby, confirming the judgment and decree of the lower Court, by judgment dated 17.02.2014. Aggrieved against the concurrent finding, the defendants have come forward with the Second Appeal.

3. Mr.K.V.Babu, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants would contend that the respondent/plaintiff has sought for the relief of permanent injunction alone, without seeking for the relief of declaration and therefore, the suit for injunction itself is not maintainable. He would further contend that the respondent/ plaintiff, who claims to be the absolute owner, cannot file a suit in his representative capacity. He would further add that the question as regards the Management of the Temple cannot be decided by the Civil Court.

4. The Second Appeal was not admitted, but, the respondent herein/plaintiff entered appearance through Caveator Mr.M.Jayachandran, who would submit that the plaintiff has filed the suit seeking to allow him to remove the broken parts of the buildings of suit Temple Mandapam, compound wall and the shops and renovate the same by way of new building, as the Temple Mandapam is in dilapidated condition. He would further add that the Lower Court, while decreeing the suit has categorically held that the plaintiff and his predecessor-in-title are in Management of the Temple, which came to be confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court. He would further add that both Courts below have cagegorically held that the defendants were not in the Management of the Temple and therefore, he would contend that the plaintiff should not be prohibited from removing the debris and putting up the new construction.

5. Heard both sides. By consent, the Second Appeal itself is taken up for final disposal.

6. The questions of law raised in the grounds of the Second Appeal are as follows:-

“1. Whether suit for injunction is maintainable when relief of declaration is not sought for?

2. Whether Civil Courts have the jurisdiction to decide the question of management and nature of a Temple by way of civil suit?

3. Whether a person who claims absolute ownership over Temple can file suit in representative capacity?”.

7. The fact remains that both Courts below have categorically held that the plaintiff and his predecessor-in-title are in Management