IMPORTANT POINT
The amendment to Section 56 of the Tamil Nadu Act abolishes hereditary priesthood, affecting claims to perform pooja based on lineage.

JUDGMENT :

S. Sounthar, J.

[PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree, dated 08.03.2008, passed in A.S.No.29 of 2007 on the file of Sub-Court, Sankarankoil, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 21.12.2006, passed in O.S.No.352 of 2005 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Sankarankoil.]

The plaintiffs in the suit are the appellants. The suit was for declaration that the plaintiffs were entitled to perform poojas in the suit temple as per the suit schedule and for consequential injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the said right. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court and the findings of the trial Court were affirmed by the first appellate court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the plaintiffs are before this Court.

2. According to the plaintiffs, the poojas at Arul Migu Sankaranarayana Temple at Sankarankoil had been performed by 9 families and the first plaintiff's father-in-law and second plaintiff's father - Sankara Pattar was one among such family members. The said Sankara Pattar died 50 years ago, leaving behind his wife - Maragatha Ammal, daughter second plaintiff, and two sons – defendants 1 and 2, as his legal heirs. Since at the time of death of Sankara Pattar, male heirs, namely, defendants 1 and 2 were minors, the first plaintiff - husband of Sankara Pattar's daughter was allowed to perform pooja and he had been doing poojas in the temple as such. All-of-a-sudden, the defendants 1 and 2 made an attempt to interfere with the first plaintiff's right to perform pooja in the suit temple by claiming that they obtained an order from the third defendant for performing pooja in the place of Sankara Pattar. Under these circumstances, the plaintiffs were constrained to file a suit for the above said relief.

3. The defendants 1 and 2 filed a written statement and contended that at the time of death of their father – Sankara Pattar, they were minors and hence the pooja right available to Sankara Pattar was registered in the name of his wife Maragatha Ammal. The first plaintiff – son-in-law of Maragatha Ammal was allowed to perform pooja as a substitute for Maragatha Ammal. The pooja right was not transferred in favour of the first plaintiff. He was allowed to perform pooja only as a substitute. Therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking declaration of pooja right, as a matter of fact, was not at all maintainable. The defendants 1 and 2 also claimed that they were hereditary priests of the temple after the death of Maragatha Ammal on 01.08.2004. The defendants 1 and 2, as male heirs, made an application to the temple authorities and got their names registered on 15.09.2005. It was also claimed that the defendants 1 and 2 have been doing pooja in the temple from 17.09.2005 onwards. Therefore, it was the case of the defendants that the plaintiffs were not performing pooja on the date of the presentation of the plaint and as a consequence, they sought for dismissal of the suit.

4. The third defendant – Executive Officer of the temple also filed a written statement, stating that after the death of Sankara Pattar, the right to perform pooja in his place was registered in the name of Maragatha Ammal. Since she was a female heir, her son-in-law – first plaintiff was allowed to perform pooja as a substitute. It was also claimed by the third defendant that Maragatha Ammal died on 01.08.2004 and, thereafter, as per the practice prevailing in the temple, the defendants 1 and 2, who were male heirs, were permitted to perform pooja from 17.09.2005.

5. On these pleadings, the parties went to trial and the trial Court, on appreciation of evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to prove that they were performing pooja on the date of filing of the suit and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal in A.S.No.29 of 2007. The first appellate Court affirmed t