G. Jayachandran, J.

The long journey of this litigation instituted in the year 1982 by the plaintiff as indigent is capsulised and narrated below :-

2. The suit properties belong to one Narayanasami Mudaliar. He died leaving his wife, son and two daughters. Kadirvelu Mudaliar, who is the son of Narayanasami Mudaliar later, died issueless leaving behind his wife Thailammal. On 9.12.1949, a partition was effected between Manikammal w/o deceased Narayanasami and her daughter-in-law Thailammal w/o Kadirvelu. As per the terms of the partition deed, marked as Ex A-1, the Plaint 'A' schedule properties were taken by Manikammal and 'B' schedule properties were taken by Thailammal and 'C' schedule properties were earmarked to a charity for conducting "Naalvar Poojai" at Kurnchipadikuppam Shri Kumbaeswarar Temple and the same was entrusted to one Adhanamozhi Mudaliar who was none other than the brother's son of Late. Naryananasami Mudaliar. Adhanamozhi Mudaliar was also, at that time, the Dharmakartha of 'Naalvar Thirunatchatra Annadhanam'. The partition deed reads that after the demise of Manickammal and Thailammal, 'A' and 'B' schedule properties shall go to Adhanamozhi Mudaliar. He shall conduct the 'Thiruvillaku poojai' and 'Shivarathi poojai' of Shri Kumbaeshwara Temple at Kurnichipadikuppam Village. After his life time, his heirs has to continue the charity out of the income from that properties.

3. The properties entrusted to Adhanamozhi Mudaliar and his heirs with an obligation to perform the specified poojas and to run the charity, is the subject matter of the dispute. Adhanamozhi Mudaliar is said to have been died issueless in the year 1975. The plaintiff claiming himself as the nearest heir of Adhanamozhi Mudaliar, filed the suit for recovery of possession and mense profit from the defendant. According to the plaintiff, the defendant who is also related to Adhanamozhi Mudaliar came into possession of the suit property, few years before Adhanamozhi Mudaliar died. He was assisting Adhanamozhi Mudaliar, in doing poojas to the Temple. Between the Plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff is the nearest relation to Adhanamozhi Mudaliar and hence, the plaintiff is entitle for the suit properties.

4. Admitting the case of the plaintiff regarding the relationship and the partition deed Ex A-1, the defendant contested the suit on the ground that, the heir referred in the partition deed dated 09.12.1949 marked as EX.A-1 refers to male descendants only. During the year 1950 Adanamozhi Mudaliar was unable to perform the poojas and to run the charity, so he entrusted the properties to Manikasami. Till his life time, Manikasami and thereafer, the defendant who is the son of Manikasami is in possession of the properties and carrying on the charity work.

5. In respect of other two items of the suit schedule properties, the defendant pleaded that they are, his self acquired properties. Further, he sought for dismissal of the suit for recovery of possession, on the ground that the properties are trust properties. Without seeking a declaration against the office of trusteeship, the relief sought for by the plaintiff in the suit is not maintainable.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues :-

"(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession ?

(2) Whether the plaintiff is the descendant of the trustee Adhanamohzi Mudaliar ?

(3) Whether the suit is maintainable ?

(4) Whether the suit is barred by limitation ?

(5) Whether the trial court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit ?

(6) What relief the plaintiff is entitle for ?"

7. The trial Court examined the plaintiff as PW-1 and Defendant as DW-1. Apart from the parties to the suit, the paternal uncle of the Defendant one Palaniandi was examined on behalf of the defendant as DW-2. Three exhibits were marked as Exs.A-1 to A-3. They are the partition deed dated 9.12.1949, Lawyer's notice to the defendant dated 21.9.1975 and the reply notice to the pla