V RAGHAVACHARI Vs. NARAYANA IYENGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second appeal is by the plaintiffs. In Ulandai village in North Arcot, Dt. , there was an ancient temple called Sri Kariamanicka Perumal temple. It fell into ruins. The daily worship was not performed. It appears that, when His Holiness Sri sankaracharaya of Kamakoti Peetam visited the village before 1960, he suggested that the temple had fallen on evil days because it was situated behind the row of houses forming the Agraharam and that it would be better to build a temple in front of the Agraharam. Accordingly public subscriptions were raised and a new temple was built facing the Agraharam. The Kumbbabhishekam was performed in 1963 as per the invitation, Ext. A-3. The Moolavar (deity) at the site of the old temple could not be traced, but the Utsavar (who comes out) was available and the Utsavar was installed in the new temple. Some stones of the old temple were utilized for the construction of the new temple. Some copper plates were also utilized.

(2.) AT the time of the formation of the new temple a Thengalai namam was put on the forehead of the Utsavar. It was not there before. This seems to have annoyed some of the Vadagalai people. Whether on this account or for some other reason, many of the inhabitants of the village decided in 1966 to renovate the old temple at its site. Accordingly a general subscription List E. B. 1, dated 2-5-1966, was opened. Narayana Iyengar, the defendant in the suit, was mainly authorized to make the collections and renovate the old temple. Actually his father has endowed the income of a small property in 1910 under a registered deed, Ex. A-1, for the support of the old temple.

(3.) IN accordance with the wishes of the villagers the defendant began renovating the old temple. Thereupon the six plaintiffs, holding out that they were the trustees of Sri Kariamanicka Perumal temple, brought the suit, O. S. No. 262 of 1967, out of which this appeal arises, for an injunction restraining the defendant from proceeding with the construction. The contention of the plaintiffs is that the deity which presided at the old site has been installed at the site of the new temple and that the site of the old temple belongs to the deity which has now been installed in the new temple.