The central legal point established in the judgment is that the issue of title to the temple property should be addressed in a suit seeking declaration of title, and subsequent events related to the temple's suit for declaration of title should be considered.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer in S.A. No. 2103 of 2002:- The Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC, to set aside the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.95 of 2000 dated 29.06.2002 on the file of the First Additional Court, Salem confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.1325 of 1988 dated 27.11.1998 on the file of the Second Additional District Munsif Court, Salem.

S.A. No. 2104 of 2002:- The Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC, to set aside the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.47 of 1999 dated 29.06.2001 on the file of the First Additional Court, Salem confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.1418 of 1988 dated 27.11.1998 on the file of the Second Additional District Munsif Court, Salem.)

Common Judgment

1. There are two Second Appeals. S.A.No.2103 of 2002 emanates from O.S.No.1325 of 1988 which was on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Salem and which suit had been decreed by judgment dated 27.11.1998 and questioning such decree the appellant herein / 5th defendant in the said suit also filed A.S.No.95 of 2000 before the I Additional District Court / Chief Judicial Magistrate Salem, which Appeal was dismissed by judgment dated 29.06.2001.

2. S.A.No.2104 of 2002 emanates from O.S.No.1418 of 1988 which was on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Salem and which suit had been filed by the 1st respondent herein and which had been decreed by judgment dated 27.11.1998 and which decree had been confirmed in A.S.No.47 of 1999 dated 29.06.2001 by the I Additional District Court / Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem.

3. It is to be mentioned that as a matter of fact, a common judgment had been delivered in both the Original Suits and in the two Appeal Suits. Though notices had been served and counsels had entered appearance, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondents. But however, in view of the averments and submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, let me not hold over the two Second Appeals any further on the board of this Court.

4. The suit in O.S.No.1325 of 1988 had been filed as a representative suit seeking permanent injunction from putting up any construction over the property of the Arulmigu Palapattarai Mariamman Temple, Ammapet, Salem – 3. The case of the plaintiff was that the land belongs to the said temple and that private individuals should not put up any construction over the said land. The 5th defendant / appellant herein is the Executive Officer of the said temple. The title was traced to a sale deed executed by one Krishna Chettiyar on 22.02.1927 in favour of the temple and which document was marked as Ex.A5. The Courts below found that in the said sale deed, the boundaries did not co-relate with the land as on ground, that no survey number was given and that further no measurements were also given.

5. But however, let me not enter into any discussion on such a findings, since the suit was only for permanent injunction and it would only be proper that the sale deed Ex.A5 is further examined in more detail in a suit, if at all filed seeking declaration of title, and as it now transpires has already been filed.

6. The suit in O.S.No.1418 of 1988 was filed by the one single individual, the 1st respondent herein claiming that he was the owner of the land belonging to the temple and also for permanent injunction. The suit in O.S.No.1418 of 1988 was decreed and the Suit in O.S.No.1325 of 1988 was dismissed. The Appeal Suits namely, A.S.No.47 of 1999 and A.S.No.95 of 2000 both were filed by the present appellant herein and both the appeals were dismissed, leading to the filing of the present Second Appeals.

7. Even though in every Second Appeal, the Court has a duty to examine whether any substantial question of law arises, in the present case there has been a further subsequent event and it would only be prudent that such event is taken judicial note of this Court.

8. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the temple represented by i