Ownership of property related to religious purposes necessitates stringent proof of claims about partition and title, which must be substantiated in evidence.

J U D G M E N T

This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed in Appeal Suit No.95 of 1998 by the III Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai, reversing the judgment and decree passed by the District Munsif Court, Madurai Taluk, Madurai in O.S.No.167 of 1996.

2.The appellant is the plaintiff, who instituted the suit in O.S.No.167 of 1996 for a declaration and permanent injunction. For convenience, the parties will be referred to according to their litigative status before the trial court.

3. The short facts of the plaintiff are as follows:

3.1. The plaintiff claims that the suit property, originally owned by Ayyakannu Asari, is a temple house dedicated to Lord Muniyandisamy and Karuppanasamy. Ayyakannu Asari created two wooden chariots, or sapparams, for these deities, which are taken to the village temple during a festival held every two years. The property is meant to be held in trust for the purpose of maintaining these sapparams. After Ayyakannu Asari's death, his son Mookanasari continued to manage the property and receive honors during the festivals. Mookanasari passed away, leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendants as legal heirs. The plaintiff asserts that the property is inalienable and indivisible, and he, along with his brother Ayyaganapathy, has maintained it.

He emphasizes that the property has been used for festivals consistently.

3.2. It is further stated that both the plaintiff and the defendants' father jointly enjoyed the property through various transactions, including mortgages and leases. On 30.10.1963, the plaintiff and his brother Ayyaganapathy mortgaged the suit property, along with additional land, to Rajagopal Naidu for Rs.1,000. The plaintiff also mentions that his brother, Maragasagayam, who left the village years ago, sold his alleged one-third share in the suit property to V.N. Alagarsamy through a registered sale deed dated 11.01.1961. After learning of this sale, the plaintiff and Ayyaganapathy, the father of the defendants, purchased the property from Alagarsamy on 24.11.1967, for valuable consideration. Additionally, the plaintiff states that on 07.10.1974, he and Ayyaganapathy sold the eastern portion of the suit property, measuring 14 feet east-west and 26 feet north-south, to Rajammal, while retaining ownership of the koil veedu itself. The sale deed for this transaction is attached to the plaint. Since the plaintiff has been living away from the suit property, Ayyaganapathy took responsibility for its management, leasing it to third parties. Throughout his life, Ayyaganapathy provided the plaintiff with his share of the rental income from the property. Following Ayyaganapathy’s death on 9.11.1995, the defendants allegedly began arrangements to sell the suit property to the fifth defendant.

3.3. The plaintiff further states that the defendants have no independent right to sell the property, as it is a temple house vested in trust for the purpose of maintaining the two sapparams for specific religious purposes established by their grandfather. The fourth defendant was inducted as a tenant in the suit property by the defendants' father and currently operates a betel nut shop there. The defendants have reportedly been collecting the rent but are evading payment of the plaintiff's due share since their father's passing. The plaintiff expresses concern that the suit property may be sold by the defendants to the fifth defendant. Hence, the plaintiff instituted this suit seeking a declaration that the suit property, as a temple house, is inalienable and belo