A temporary injunction requires a prima facie case and cannot be granted without substantial evidence, particularly in suits lacking a declaration of rights.

JUDGMENT :

L. Victoria Gowri, J.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed challenging the order passed by the District Munsif Court at Ottanchathiram Dindigul District, in I.A.No.409 of 2024 in O.S.No.106 of 2024. The original.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their rank in the interlocutory application.

3. The petitioner and the plaintiff in the original suit are one and the same, namely, P. Sekar Poosari. The respondents/defendants before the trial Court are the appellants herein. The suit in O.S.No.106.of 2024 was filed for a spermanent injunction. The interim application in I.A.No.409 of 2024 was for a temporary injunction, seeking status quo and restraining the respondent / defendants from interfering in any manner with the petitioner / plaintiff's right of Poosariship of Mamparai Sri Muniyappasamy Temple, Markammpatti Village and Post. The trial Court, after hearing the arguments of both Counsels, has proceeded to pass an order of interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff, restraining the respondents / defendants from interfering with the petitioner / plaintiff in his conduct of Poosariship at the Mamparai Sri Muniyappasamy Temple by the impugned order. Challenging the same, the appellants are before this Court.

4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents/ Defendants submitted that the suit was one for a bare injunction and without seeking a relief of declaration of his Poosariship, the suit has been laid by the petitioner / plaintiff. The petitioner/plaintiff, namely, P.Sekar Poosari is the husband of the third respondent / third defendant. The claim of the petitioner/plaintiff that he was a trained Poosari by the father of the respondents / defendans, namely Sakthivel is baseless. The Mamparai Sri Muniyappasamy Temple is a village temple situated at Ellapatti Village. The said temple was established by one Palaniyappa Pandaram at the first instance. The Deputy Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration) Department , Madurai, dealt with O.A.No. 33 of 1976, laid by the original trustee of the temple, Palaniyappa Pandaram, and decided in favor of the applicant declaring him as the hereditary trustee of the aforesaid village temple. The original hereditary trustee passed away on 22.02.1984 and was survived by his son Sakthivel, who took up the hereditary trusteeship and continued performing the pooja and other rituals of the village temple in question. On 31.07.2003, the Sakthivel passed away and was survived by his children, who are the respondents / defendants in the suit. The petitioner / plaintiff is none other than the husband of the third respondent / third defendant. Only after his marriage with the third respondent / third defendant, he came into contact with the temple in question, since his wife i.e., the third respondent / third defendant is also one of the hereditary trustees. The temple, however, does not accept the conduct of Poosariship by women, so her husband was permitted with the connivance of all the stakeholders, i.e, the surviving hereditary trustees, to conduct the Poosariship on behalf of the female hereditary trustee, i.e, his wife.

5. However, in due course of time, he had developed illicit relationships with several women and succumbed to alcoholism, which affected the various rituals and conduct of daily poojas in the temple in question. Later, this led to estrangement between the hereditary trustees, more particularly between him and his wife Gomathi, as a result of which they are separated for the past few years, which culminated in filing H.M.O.P.No.87 of 2024 before the Sub Ordinate Court, Ottachandthiram, seeking divorce, and the same is pending and the petitioner / paintiff and the third respondent / third defendant are no more dwelling together. In view of the estrangement between the third respondent / third defendant and the petitioner, all the hereditary trustees of the aforesaid temple together resol