P.R. SHIVAKUMAR, J.

1. This Second Appeal arises out of the decree of the I Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli dated 10.10.2013 made in A.S. No. 22 of 2013. The said appeal was filed against the decree of the trial Court namely, Sub Court, Sankarankovil dated 28.02.2013 made in O.S. No. 92 of 2010. The respondents herein who were the plaintiffs in the said suit filed the suit for the following reliefs:-

“(i) A declaration that the suit properties are the private trust properties belonging to Arulmigu Balasubramania Swamy Temple.

(ii) A consequential injunction restraining the appellants herein/defendants from interfering with the right of the respondents herein/plaintiffs as Akdhars of the temple in the management of the temple and its properties.

(iii) For a permanent injunction restraining the appellants defendants from alienating or encumbering the suit temple and its properties.”

2. The suit was resisted by the first appellant contending that by virtue of a sale deed dated 15.07.1995 he got the akdharship/trustship in respect of the suit temple and its property transferred in his favour and that the subsequent unilateral cancellation of the sale deed dated 15.07.1995 was legally invalid and ineffective. It transpires that purporting to exercise the right sought to be conferred on him under the sale deed dated 15.07.1995, the first appellant in the capacity as akdhar/trustee of Arulmigu Subramaniasamy Temple created a mortgage in favour of the appellants 3 and 4 defendants 3 and 4. However, the respondent herein/plaintiff, intending to project herself to be a person interested in safeguarding the interest of the properties of the temple, chose to file the above said suit against the appellants herein for the reliefs indicated supra.

3. The suit was decreed by the trial Court by a judgment and decree dated 28.02.2013 and on appeal, the lower Appellate Court confirmed the decree of the trial Court by a judgment and decree dated 10.10.2013. As such, the present Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court as confirmed by the lower Appellate Court. The Second Appeal was admitted on 21.04.2015 on the following substantial question of law:-

“Whether the suit for declaration that the temple is a private temple and its properties are private trust properties is maintainable in view of the bar provided under Section 108 read with Section 63(a) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959?

4. The arguments advanced by Mr. P. Natarajan, learned counsel for the appellants and by Mr. R. Subramanian, learned counsel for the respondent were heard. The judgments of the Courts below and the materials available on record sent for from the Courts below were perused and were also taken into consideration.

5. The Courts below misdirected themselves in embarking upon a roving enquiry as to whether the mortgage created by the first appellant herein in favour of the appellants 3 and 4 herein was valid and binding on the temple. In fact, the same was not the issue sought to be raised in the plaint. The plaint was coined in such a way that alienation or encumbrance had not taken place and the plaintiff was seeking an order of restraint preventing the appellants herein/defendants from alienating or encumbering not only the properties of the temple but also the suit temple itself.

6. Previously, one V. Kandan, the then Hereditary Trustee of Sri Balasubramaniasamy Temple filed a suit against the Commissioner, HR & CE, Chennai challenging surcharge proceedings against him for pledging the jewels of the temple and against the order of removal from the Hereditary Trusteeship passed by the Commissioner. In the said suit, O.S. No. 40 of 1974, decided by the Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli on 26.07.1976, the removal of V. Kandan from the Office of Hereditary Trusteeship was held to be not proper and it was set aside on the basis of the finding that the pledging of the jewels of the t