The judgment established the importance of oral and documentary evidence in proving parentage and inheritance rights, and the interpretation of a Will in determining eligibility for hereditary trusteeship.

R. MAHADEVAN, J.

1. This Second Appeal has been filed by the Defendant, who lost his case before the lower appellate court, but succeeded before the Trial Court, against judgment and decree, dated 21.01.2003, made in AS.No.94/2002, by the learned Additional District Judge, FTC II, Cuddalore, setting aside the judgment and decree, dated 29.06.2001, made in OS.No.27/1992, by the learned Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram. For the sake of convenience and for easy reference, the parties are hitherto described as they were arrayed before the Trial Court.

2. The case of the Plaintiff, as set out in the Plaint, is as follows:-

a. Originally, the Trust was created with 40.00 acres of lands (comprised in items 1 to 16 of the plaint schedule), by way of a registered partition deed, among the ancestors of the Plaintiff, in the year 1886. In that line of ancestors, one Sivakolundu Pillai became the Trustee for the lands and he possessed them and had been performing the Trust. While so, the said Sivakolundu Pillai has executed a registered Will on 17.11.1907, in respect of the undivided joint family properties. Since his sons were also pious and religious minded, the said Sivakolundu Pillai has constructed Sri Kothandaramaswamy Temple at Pinnathur, the suit village. For the management of the Temple, he has appointed his four sons, viz. Rajagopal Pillai, Ethiraju Pillai, Ramanujam Pillai and Chidambaram Pillai and he has also prescribed the line of succession. He has intended that only male members should perform the charities. The said Sivakolundu Pillai has created the said Trust, by adding other items of the suit properties (about 60.00 acres), which he acquired. Thus, items 1 to 16 of the suit properties were exclusively dedicated for the Masi Makam kattalai, for Govindarajaswamy Temple at Chidambaram. The said Sivakolundu Pillai was performing the Poojas and Uthsavams for Sri Kothandramaswamy Temple at Pinnathur, from out of the other 60.00 acres of properties referred to above, till his life. After the death of Sivakolundu Pillai, his sons were performing the charity. Rajagopala Pillai's son Ramakrishna Pillai came to manage and perform the charity, as the senior most male member, since Ethiraju Pillai had no male issues and Chidambaram Pillai having gone out of the family, on account of his adoption. Ramakrishna Pillai became disqualified due to acts of misfeasance, malfeasance and acts of fraud and cheating and was removed.

b. Thereafter, Ramanujam Pillai's son, Seethapathy, the father of the Plaintiff came to perform the charity, being the senior most male member and has been performing the Trust, without any remarks. His Trusteeship was also recognised by the HR&CE Department and he has been in possession of the properties as a Trustee, till his death on 28.7.1987. In fact, the said Seethapathi Pillai has also got an exemption of about 23 acres and 21 cents for his personal enjoyment through the HR&CE Department. Thus, the father of the Plaintiff was the Hereditary Trustee and has been in possession and enjoyment of the Trust, by actual holding and performing the Trust obligations. While so, the said Seethapathi Pillai, on 15.4.1987, has executed a registered Will and thereby appointed the Plaintiff as the Hereditary Trustee and also bequeathed his personal properties to him, which he got under the permission from the HR&CE Department. Thus, the Plaintiff as the Hereditary Trustee has been in possession and management of the suit properties, as well as the Temple, Sri Kothandaramaswamy Temple and has been performing the Poojas and Masi Makam Kattalai of Sri Lord Govindarajaswamy Temple till this date. His position as the Hereditary Trustee is also recognised by the HR&CE Department and he has also been paying the contribution amount under the Act. He has also paid the kist for the suit properties and no other person, except the Plaintiff, has got any semblance of right whatsoever over the suit properties and the temple. There are