The suit properties were specifically endowed for doing charity services to the temple. The Court held that the suit properties have been completely endowed to the Temple for the purpose of performing some services to the temple. The plaintiff Temple is entitled to declaration, recovery of possession, and permanent injunction.

JUDGMENT :

PRAYER: This Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2014 passed in O.S.No.36 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Tuticorin.

Aggrieved over the dismissal of the suit filed seeking declaration and recovery of possession and mandatory injunction not to construct any further construction in the suit property, in O.S.No.36 of 2012 on the file of the learned II Additional District Court, Tuticorin, dated 28.02.2014, the present appeal is filed by the plaintiff.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the Suit are as follows:

(i) Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple, Tiruchendur is the plaintiff in the suit. Originally the suit properties are endowed to the temple for the purpose of doing certain charities, viz., Viswarupa Neivathiyam and Archanai vide partition deed, dated 02.01.1905 executed among one Kandasamy Pillai and Muthiah Pillai. In the said deed, the suit properties were earmarked for doing certain charities. Once the properties have been endowed to the temple for performing charity and service, the said properties are the absolute properties of the Temple and same cannot be alienated. However, the third respondent, the legal heir of Muthiah Pillai sold a portion of the suit properties to the first respondent under Ex.A2, dated 10.09.1976. Similarly, the father of the third defendant sold a portion of the suit properties in favour of the grandfather of the second defendant under Ex.A3, dated 25.11.1960. After coming to know about the sale made in respect of the suit properties, the plaintiff issued a notice to the third defendant on 12.06.2003 under Ex.A5 and the same was not replied. In the meantime, the first defendant demolished the old building located in the suit property and made an attempt to put up a new construction. In this regard, notice was also issued to the first defendant under Ex.A6. Further, the second defendant also made an attempt to demolish an another building situated in the suit property. Hence, the suit had been filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration, recovery of possession and permanent injunction.

4. It is the contention of the first defendant that the suit properties were originally belonged to the family of the third defendant. The third defendant obtained release deed from the other legal heirs and became an absolute owner of the suit properties and he executed a sale deed in favour of the first defendant. The first defendant is regularly doing Neivaithiyam and Archanai to the plaintiff Temple. As the properties belong to the Chekala Community, the said community is doing all the works and worships to the plaintiff Temple. The community is maintaining the properties by putting boundaries and making valuable improvements in the suit properties. The plaintiff has no right over the suit properties. The first defendant is doing all charities to the Temple.

5. The second defendant has filed a written statement to the effect that the second defendant is the owner of the suit second schedule property. He contended that the suit second schedule property is originally belonged to his grandfather, namely, Essakkiyapillai, who purchased the said property under sale deed, dated 25.11.1960. There is no recital in the partition deed with regard to the performance of any religious rites or charities in the second schedule property. Therefore, the second defendant contended that the plaintiff Temple has no right over the second schedule property and the second defendant has right to demolish or construct any building in the suit second schedule property.

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

“1. Whether the plaintiff Temple is entitled for declaration that the schedule properties were given to the Temple as endowment properties to perform certain religious rites and cha