The officials of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department and the Secretary to Tamil Nadu Government, Tamil Development and Religious Trust Department and Information are the appellants in the Second Appeal. The respondents herein filed the suit O.S.No.245/2010 on the file of the Court of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri against the appellants herein arraying them as defendants 1 to 5 and praying for a declaration that the suit temple is a private temple belonging to the family of the respondents herein/plaintiffs, for a consequential injunction not to interfere with their management of the said temple by appointing any person as Fit Person or in any other capacity and for costs.

2. The learned trial judge decreed the suit granting the reliefs sought for by the respondents herein/plaintiffs without cost by a judgment and decree dated 05.02.2013. The appellants herein preferred an appeal before the lower Appellate Court, namely the Sub Court, Sankarankoil in A.S.No.8/2013. The learned lower Appellate Judge, on a re-appreciation of evidence by a judgment and decree dated 27.01.2014 concurred with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal without cost confirming the decree passed by the trial Court. It is as against the said decree of the lower Appellate Court dated 27.01.2014, the present Second Appeal has been filed.

3. The second appeal was admitted on 24.06.2015 identifying the following questions to be the substantial questions of law involved in the Second Appeal:

Substantial Questions of Law:

1. Whether the suit for declaration that the suit temple is a private temple is maintainable in the Civil Court?

2. Whether the Courts below have committed an error in law in granting the relief of declaration disregarding the bar provided under Section 108 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959?

3. Can the question whether the suit temple is a private temple be incidentally gone into in considering the prayer for injunction?

4. Whether the Courts below have committed an error in law in granting the relief of perpetual injunction?

4. The arguments advanced by Mr. V.R. Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader (HR&CE) representing the appellants and by Mr. S.S. Sundar, learned counsel for the respondents were heard. The judgments and decrees of the Courts below and the materials available on record sent for from the Courts below were also perused.

5. The respondents herein/plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration and injunction on the basis of their contention that the suit temple is a private temple belonging to their family in which the plaintiffs and the members of their families alone are entitled to offer worship and that at no point of time the same was dedicated to the public and the public are also not permitted to offer worship in the said temple. The following are their other contentions: The suit temple was in fact a samadhi founded by one Chockalingam Pillai, the great grandfather of the respondents herein/plaintiffs. Over the samadhi, the statues of his parents, viz. Sellathammal and Palanikumar Pillai were installed and the same were named by the respondents herein/plaintiffs as Pethanadheswarar and Pethanayagiammal. It was intended for the benefit of the founder's legal heirs. On 12.12.1898 Chockalingam Pillai executed a Deed of Endowment and the same would give an idea about the character of the temple. The earlier suit, namely O.S.No.97/2005 filed on the file of Sub Court, Sankarankoil was preferred by the heirs of the founder and the same ended in a compromise. The respondents herein/plaintiffs alone were entitled and competent to manage the affairs of the suit temple. However the appellants/defendants made an attempt to bring the suit temple under their control and the same forced the respondents herein/plaintiffs to approach