G. Chockalingam, J.

Though the vacate stay petition in M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2015 in W.A. (MD).No.368 of 2014 is listed for disposal, by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, W.A.(MD).No.368 of 2014 itself is taken up for final disposal, along with W.A.(MD).No.300 of 2014 and S.A.(MD). 189 of 2014.

2. Aggrieved by the learned single Judge's order dated 12.11.2013 passed in W.P.(MD).No.12139 of 2012, the sixth respondent in the said Writ Petition (i.e. G.V. Nagarajan) has filed Writ Appeal in W.A.(MD).No.300 of 2014 and the respondents 1 to 5 in W.P.(MD).No.12139 of 2012 have filed Writ Appeal in W.A.(MD).No.368 of 2014.

3. Second Appeal in S.A.(MD).No.189 of 2014 is filed the writ petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.12139 of 2012, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.73 of 2009, challenging the judgment and decree, dated 23.09.2013 in A.S.No.12 of 2011, in which, the judgment and decree of the trial Court, dated 31.01.2011 in O.S.No.73 of 2009, were reversed by the lower appellate Court (first appellate Court) in A.S.No.12 of 2011.

4. As the issue involved in both the Writ Appeals and the Second Appeal, is one and the same, they are disposed of by this common judgment. For the purpose of convenience, the private parties are referred to as they are ranked before the trial Court in O.S.No.73 of 2009.

5. The case of the HR & CE Department/appellants in W.A. (MD).No.368 of 2014 is that Arulmighu Aadhi Mariamman Thirukkoil, K.Pudur, Madurai, is a public Temple, situated in the lands in S.Nos. 213/11 and 213/12 (part). Originally, the lands were classified as Government poramboke lands. It is alleged further that the first respondent, namely G.Paramasivam's father constructed the said Temple and the Patta stands in the name of the said Temple. While so, the second respondent, namely G.V. Nagaragan (in W.A.(MD).No.368 of 2014), claiming to be a Trustee, gave a complaint on 15.06.2011 to the H.R. & C.E. Department stating that the Temple yields huge income and that his paternal uncle, namely Mr.G.Paramasivam (who is the first respondent in both the Writ Appeals, i.e. the plaintiff in the suit) is misappropriating the funds, that the family circumstances are not conducive for easy management of the said Temple and that the official appellants-HR & CE Department could be permitted to take over the management of the Temple. As the internal disputes among them created law and order problem, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, initiated proceedings under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

6. In the meanwhile, the first respondent in W.A.(MD).No.368 of 2014 filed a suit in O.S.No.73 of 2009 before the trial Court, as against V. Nagarajan and six others, seeking declaration that he is in possession of the suit property and for permanent injunction, describing the lands in which the said Temple is situated and without making the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department as a party. The said suit was decreed on 31.01.2011. On First Appeal in A.S.No.12 of 2011, the lower appellate Court, by judgment, dated 23.09.2013 allowed the First Appeal and dismissed the suit as not maintainable, in view of the bar provided under Section 108 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department Act (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959) (hereinafter referred to as 'the H.R. & C.E. Act'), as against which, the plaintiff (Paramasivam) filed Second Appeal before this Court in S.A.(MD).No.189 of 2014, which is being disposed of by this common judgment along with the above two Writ Appeals.

7. In view of the dispute in managing the affairs of the said Arulmighu Aadhi Maariamman Temple, the same was locked by the Police officials on the said complaint by the first defendant-Nagarajan. The third respondent-Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, by proceedings dated 22.05.2012, registered the said Temple as a "public Temple" in the Register for List of temples. By the same proceedings, he directed the fifth respondent-Assistant Comm