JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 01.02.2006 made in O.S.No.34 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Court – cum – Fast Track Court – I, Erode, in so far as decreeing the suit for recovery of possession and prohibitory injunction and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

A. The Appeal :

This Appeal Suit is filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 01.02.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court – I, Erode, in O.S.No.34 of 2004 in and by which, the suit filed by the first respondent temple herein, for recovery of possession and permanent injunction, was decreed by the Trial Court.

B. The Case of the Plaintiff :

2. The suit property belongs to the Temple. While so, one Chandrasekara Gounder, Malaikozhunthu Gounder, Venkatachala Gounder and Subburayalu Gounder, approached the plaintiff'/Temple on 27.05.1923 and sought the suit property for charitable purposes putting up Mandapam for use of the devotees to stay in the Temple at the time of festivals and to dig a Well to establish a garden (Nanthavanam) for cultivating flowering plants, to offer the flowers for conducting Poojas in the Temple. By giving an undertaking that except for the above purpose, they will not claim any other proprietary rights in the suit schedule property, requested the plaintiff/Temple for the use of the suit property. Thereafter, an order was passed on 16.10.1923, granting permission to them, and based on the said permission, on 12.11.1923, a Muchalika was executed by the above said persons. As per the said Muchalika, a Chathiram will be put up and no fee will be charged to the devotees staying in it. A Well would be dug and Nanthavanam will be established offering flowers for the Pooja in the Temple. But, however, in due course of time, the defendants who are the legal representatives of the said persons, violated the Muchalika and they are running a Kalyana Mandapam and the same is rented out, like any other private Kalyana Mandapam for all functions. The defendants are making profits as if they are the owners of the property. Moreover, no pilgrims or devotees are permitted to use the said property. There is no Nanthavanam in the property, and no flowers are offered to the Temple Pooja. Even non-vegetarian foods were prepared and served in several Muslim marriages. Functions like “Manjal Neerattu Vizha” were also conducted in violation of the sanctity of the temple premises. Detailed particulars about the renting out of the Mandapam with rent details is also furnished in the plaint. Therefore, on 16.05.2003, the license was terminated and the defendants were asked to quit and deliver vacant possession of the property.

C. The Case of the defendants :

3. The said Muchalika, dated 12.11.1923 is true. Pursuant to the said Muchalika, even at that point of time, proper construction was put up and both Nanthavanam and well were created by the defendants' forefathers. Thereafter, the defendants are continuing the charity. While so, the Executive Officer filed the suit only for political reasons. Already, a suit in O.S.No.72 of 1968, was filed, objecting to the marriages being conducted in the Chathiram and for accounts, stating that flowers were not given to the Temple. The same was dismissed by the Court and the decree had become final. The defendants have not violated the said Judgment. The defendants had issued a reply notice to the legal notice on 10.06.2003, that if they are evicted the charitable purposes will be stopped, and general public will be affected. No non-vegetarian food is served even while conducting Muslim marriages.

D. Issues framed before the Trial Court :

4. On the strength of the above said pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following five issues:-

“i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession as prayed for ?

ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the re