ARULMIGHU EKAMBAREESWARAR Vs. MR DURAISAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant herein. THE appellant filed the suit for permanent injunction, restraining the respondents from constructing any building in the suit property, without the permission of the appellant.

(2.) THE case of the appellant/plaintiff was that the suit property situate in S.No.95/1, having an extent of 14.25 acres is classified as temple-poramboke and it belongs to the following temples viz., Arulmigu Ekaambareeswar, Balsubramaniyaswamy, Periya Mariyamman, Chellandiyamman, Muniyappan, Pillaiyar Koil and Ramanathasamy Mutt. All those said temples, as well as the remaining extent of vacant site are in the management and possession of the appellant-temple. Even in the year 1982, when the Panchayat Union, attempted to construct a Maternity Ward in the suit property, without the permission of the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, the appellant-temple filed a Writ Petition, W.P.No.10836 of 1982 before this Court and obtained an order of Stay. THEreafter, the Panchayat Union, also dropped the idea of constructing the building and in the year 1987, the appellant-temple wanted to construct a Kitchen in the suit property and that was objected to, by the respondents, who are representing Seguntha Mudaliar Community. THErefore, the appellant/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.642 of 1987, for the relief of injunction, restraining the said community members and the said suit was dismissed. Against the same, an Appeal was filed, being A.S.No.117 of 1994, and it was allowed and the decree passed in O.S.No.642 of 1987, was set aside and therefore, the appellant/plaintiff alone has got title to the entire suit property and the respondents have no right/title and they are only entitled to come and worship the deities and perform pooja during festival season and the entire suit property is in possession and management of the appellant/plaintiff. As the respondents are attempting to construct a building in the portion of the suit property, the suit was filed for the relief of injunction.

(3.) THE Lower Appellate Court also concurred with the findings of the Trial Court, after independently appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and also held that the suit is barred by res judicata and in an earlier two suits, the right of the appellant-temple was negatived and therefore, the appellant/plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of injunction. Hence, this Second Appeal.