JUDGMENT :

G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.

1. The second appeal is directed as against the judgment and decree dated 21.12.1996 passed in A.S. No. 24 of 1996 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Mayiladuthurai, reversing the judgment and decree dated 20.07.1995 made in O.S. No. 134 of 1987 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif Court, Sirkali.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial Court.

3. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows:-

3.1. The suit is filed for declaration, declaring that the sale transaction between the defendants 1 & 2 and third defendant is not valid and permanent injunction. The suit property belonged to the plaintiff Devasthanam and the defendants 1 & 2 are paguthidhars of the suit property under the plaintiff. The paguthi payable is Rs. 100/- per annum, by the defendants to the plaintiff. In fact, there are rental arrears and the defendants 1 & 2 have no right except as paguthidhars under the plaintiff as such, they have no power to alienate the suit property to any other.

3.2. While being so, the plaintiff received communication dated 24.02.1987 from the fourth defendant viz., the Sub Registrar, Sirkali, in respect of the transaction between the defendants 1 & 2 with the third defendant. The said communication revealed that the defendants 1 & 2 have entered into sale transaction with the third defendant in respect of the suit property. While verifying the documents, the fourth defendant found that the suit property belonged to the plaintiff Devasthanam, as such, he issued notice to the plaintiff. However, the document between the defendants 1 & 2 with the third defendant will not bind the plaintiff at any cost, since they have no title over the property except the right of paguthidhars. Hence, the suit for declaration, declaring that the sale transaction between the defendants 1 & 2 with the third defendant is not valid one and subsequent injunction.

4. Resisting the same, the third defendant filed written statement and contended that the suit property admittedly belonged to the plaintiff and the defendants 1 & 2 are the paguthidhars. The defendants 1 & 2 used to do service to the temple by carrying the idol during festival, and those who can not do the service personally, used to engage men for the same. The first defendant purchased the suit property by registered two sale deeds dated 31.10.1955 and 25.12.1958 from her vendor. The vendor under the later document, he himself purchased from one Muthia Thevar under the registered sale deed dated 08.12.1955. The property was also partitioned between the pughuthidars under the registered document dated 31.10.1955. Therefore, the defendants 1 & 2 and their predecessors in title were in possession of the suit property over the century with unfettered rights of alienation. Therefore, the defendants 1 & 2 have every right to convey the property and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. On the side of the plaintiff, they examined P.W.1 and were marked Ex.A.1. On the side of the defendants, they examined D.W.1 to D.W.3 and were marked Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.5. On perusal of the evidence on record and on considering both the oral and documentary evidences adduced by the respective parties and the submission made by the learned counsel, the trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved over the same, the third defendant alone preferred an appeal suit in A.S. No. 24 of 1996 and the first appellate Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Challenging the same, the plaintiff preferred this second appeal.

6. At the time of admission of the second appeal on 14.11.2003, the following substantial question of law was framed by this Court:-

"Whether the lower appellate Court is right in holding that the respondents 2 and 3 can transfer their rights in the suit property to the respondent No. 1 even without any permission from the temple administration Board or from the