The appellants are the defendants in the suit filed for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as per their status in the suit.

2. The brief facts, leading to the appeal, are as under:-

The suit property more fully described in the plaint belongs to the plaintiff temple viz., Arulmigu Selliandiamman Thirukoil, Bhavani, Erode District. One Mr. Kaveri was inducted as tenant by the plaintiff in respect of the suit property, 20 years prior to the date of filing of the suit. It is contended by the plaintiff that as per the terms of agreement, the land in question was leased out to the said Mr. Kaveri, on a specific condition that, he shall be permitted to put a temporary hut for the purpose of residence and no permanent structure should be constructed on the land let out. The said Mr. Kaveri died on 23.08.1997 leaving behind the defendants, who are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. During the month of March 2003, the authorities of the plaintiff temple came to know that the defendants are removing the old thatched hut and trying to put up permanent structure contrary to the terms of agreement. Hence, after issuance of notice, the suit for permanent injunction was filed along with the Interlocutory Applications for interim injunction and for appointment of Advocate Commissioner. While the trial Court granted interim injunction, restraining the defendants from putting up further construction, the defendants dis-regard to the said interim order had continued to construct a permanent structure on the suit premises and before conclusion of the trial, a packa permanent structure has come up in the suit land. The plaintiff with leave of the Court had amended the plaint by including the prayer of mandatory injunction to demolish and to remove the permanent structure built over the suit property.

3. The defendants in the written statement, has contended that there is no bar in the agreement to put up permanent structure on the ground owned by the plaintiff. They have completed construction of terraced house at the cost of Rs.3 lakhs with the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff and hence, there is no violation of any terms and conditions of the agreement. It is also contended in the written statement that, a similarly placed tenants also have put up permanent structure on the land leased out to them, with the hope that the plaintiff temple Authorities will get the consent of the Government to sell the vacant site to the respective tenants.

4. The trial Court after considering the pleadings framed the following issues:-

(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction?

(ii) What the relief the plaintiff is entitled ?

The trial Court has also framed an issue “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction” as an additional issue.

5. In support of their case, the plaintiff has examined the Executive Officer of the plaintiff temple as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.7. On behalf of the defendants, one Mr. Perumal, the second defendant, has been examined as D.W.1 and Ex.D.1 is marked on their behalf. The Commissioner's report and sketch were marked as Exs.C.1 and C.2.

6. After considering the evidence let in by both parties, the trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved by the decree of the trial Court, the defendants have preferred an appeal before the Subordinate Court, Bhavani, Erode District. However, the First Appellate Court has found no reason to interfere with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal thereby confirming the decree and judgment of the trial Court. Hence, the appellants/defendants are before this Court with this second appeal.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants contended that the suit is not maintainable, in view of Section 108 of the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Act, (hereinafter refer to as the Act), which bars a civil suit against the Hindu Religious & Charitable E