JUDGMENT

The defendants 1 to 5 are the appellants.

2. The 1st and 2nd respondents filed a suit in O.S.No.234 of 2014 for declaration that they are the joint hereditary trustees of the suit temple along with the appellants 1 to 5 herein and for a consequential direction to the 3rd respondent to pass a suitable order giving effect to such declaration. They also sought for injunction restraining the appellants from interfering with the right to function as hereditary trustees of the suit temple. The suit was decreed in part granting a decree in favour of the 1st respondent declaring that he is joint hereditary trustees along with the appellants 1 to 5 herein and for a consequential direction to the 3rd respondent to enforce the said decree of declaration. The Trial Court also granted an injunction restraining the appellants from interfering with the hereditary trusteeship of the 1st respondent. Holding that the 2nd respondent being son of the 1st respondent is not entitled to maintain suit during life time of 1st respondent, dismissed the suit in so far as he is concerned.

3. Aggrieved by the said decree, the appellants 1 to 5/defendants 1 to 5 filed this appeal. While pending the appeal, the 1st appellant passed away and hence, the appellants 6 to 9 were brought on record as his legal representatives.

4. According to the 1st and 2nd respondents/plaintiffs, a small village temple by name Sri Chendrayasamy Temple at Kudimenahalli Village, Agaram Post, Pochampalli Taluk, Krishnagiri District has been under management and poojariship of the 1st and 2nd respondents and their ancestors from time immemorial for several decades. The trusteeship and poojariship of the said temple vested with the ancestors of the 1st and 2nd respondents/plaintiffs. According to the 1st and 2nd respondents, one Mattukaran @ Kali Gounder and his brother Chinna Gounder were their ancestors had been doing poojas and managing the affairs of the suit temple. The 1st and 2nd respondents and the appellants are the descendants of said Mattukaran @ Kali Goundar and his brother Chinna Goundar. It was averred in the plaint that in the year 1987, the deceased 1st appellant/Ranganathan and 3 others filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner of HR & CE Department, Salem under Section 63 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 22/1959 in O.A.No.254 of 1987 and got orders that they were the hereditary trustees of the suit temple without knowledge of the 1st and 2nd respondents/plaintiffs. It was stated that the petitioners therein were pangalis (sharers) of the 1st and 2nd respondents/plaintiffs. The applicants in O.A.No.254 of 1987 have suppressed the line of succession of the plaintiffs in the genealogy in the application filed before the department by leaving the plaintiffs and their ancestors in the genealogy. It was stated that the 1st and 2nd respondents/plaintiffs were descendants of said Mattukaran @ Kali Gounder as described in para 3 of the application in O.A.No.254 of 1987. It was further stated that the 1st and 2nd respondents were the main persons in the management and performance of the poojas of the temple. Since the 1st appellant and the other applicants in O.A.No.254 of 1987 obtained an order behind their back as if they alone were holding the office as hereditary trusteeship. The 1st and 2nd respondents were constrained to file the suit seeking declaration.

5. The appellants herein filed a detailed written statement and resisted the suit, wherein the averment found in plaint that the 1st and 2nd respondents were performing poojas and maintaining the temple was specifically denied. It was specifically mentioned that the 1st and 2nd respondents were poojaries of the temple but they were not hereditary trustees of the temple. It was admitted by the appellants that Mattukaran @ Kali Gounder and his brother Chinna Gounder and their ancestors had been doing poojas and managing the affairs of the temple. The appellants raised