A party claiming hereditary trusteeship over temple properties must establish valid claims against previously executed deeds and demonstrate appropriate legal standing to pursue a suit related to such properties.

JUDGMENT :

P. DHANABAL, J.

1. The Second Appeal has been preferred as against the decree and judgment passed in A.S. No.85 of 2014 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Salem dated 09.06.2015 wherein the 1^st respondent herein, has filed the Suit before the trial Court / II Additional Sub Court, Salem in O.S. No.390 of 2011 for the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction and since the Suit was dismissed, aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the Plaintiff preferred the first appeal and the First Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree and decreed the Suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present Second Appeal has been preferred by the defendants.

2. The case of the Plaintiff before the trial Court is that the Plaintiff is a temple represented by its hereditary Trustee and Poojari of the temple. Previously his brother Govindaraj was acted as a Trustee and Poojari and before that, his father namely Natesan Pillai was the Hereditary Trustee and rendered poojas to the Deity. The said Natesan Pillai transferred his right of Trustee and Poojari to his son namely Govindaraj through a Will dated 10.09.1982. The said Govindaraj died on 16.01.2004 leaving behind his wife and daughters as his legal heirs. The legal heirs of the said Govindaraj are the defendants 4 to 9 herein. Thereafter, an agreement was entered into between the legal heirs of the said Govindaraj and one N. Anguraj, the Plaintiff, who is the brother of said Govindaraj, in respect of the trusteeship and Pooja. The property originally belonged to the deity Sri Angalamman. The family of the said N. Anguraj are only entitled to the said properties. The said temple is 800 years old ancient temple. In fact, one Thayumanavan constructed the temple in the year 1940 and administered the same. He had two sons namely Narayana Pillai and Dakshinamoorthy Pillai. The said Dakshinamoorthy Pillai had acted as ‘Dharmakartha’ and Poojari. The said Dakshinamoorthy had three sons namely Natesan Pillai., Angusami Pillai and Neelamegam Pillai. There was a Suit filed by Angusami Pillai and Neelamegam Pillai as against their father Dakshinamoorthy and brother Natesan Pillai in O.S. No.490 of 1949 on the file of District Munsif Court, Salem. In the said Suit, a compromise decree was passed on 07.10.1950. Thereafter, again a case in O.S. No.369 of 1996 was filed and the same was also entered into compromise on 06.06.1966.

2.1. As per the said compromise, the property was divided into four parts. The 4^th part was kept as common and all the other properties were administered by the parties as Trustees and the temple properties cannot be partitioned between them. In the said partition, ‘A’ Schedule was allotted to Natesan Pillai. However, he has not taken any property and the other two brothers had taken their shares and the 4^th item was also sold. Though the grand father of the Plaintiff Anguraj was also a party to the said Partition Deed, it will not bind upon the Plaintiff. There is no any independent right to the parties in respect of the Suit properties and they can enjoy the properties only as Trustees of the Temple. Therefore, the said partition deeds are not binding upon the parties. The temple properties had situated in ‘A’ Schedule property. The said Natesan Pillai had only acted as Poojari and maintained the temple. The ‘B’ Schedule was allotted to Angusami Pillai. Thereafter, wife of Mr. Angusami Pillai namely P