S GOVINDASAMY NAIDU Vs. POORNA VALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit which was filed for declaration, injunction and possession was dismissed by the trial court but the first appellate court has decreed the suit for declaration but dismissed it regarding permanent injunction and possession. This second appeal is filed by the defendants. THE plaintiffs have filed the cross objection.

(2.) THE suit has been filed by the plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and as representatives of Thousand Yadhavas community , Madurai , on the following allegations: Sri Ramaswamy temple and Sri Navaneethakrish-naswamy temple which are in North Masi Street , Madurai town are under the management of the Devasthanam of Thousand yadhavas THEse temples belong to the community of Thousand yadhavas who are mainly residents of Madurai Town and other places in Madurai district Thousand Yadhavas community forms a considerable section of the Hindu community. THE temples are old ones and members of the public take part in its festivals. THEse temples are public temples. THE plaintiffs are members of the Thousand Yadhavas community and worshippers of the deities in these temples. THE first plaintiff is the wife of one Krishna Konar, son of Palaniandi Konar. Her husband Krishna Konar had a brother by name Lakshmana konar. THE second defendant is the wife of the said Lakshmana Konar. Palaniandi konar, father of Krishna Konar and Lakshmana Konar had a brother by name alagappa Konar. Alagappa Konar had a son by name Arumugha Konar who died unmarried in 1979. Palaniandi Konar and Alagappa Konar had endowed properties under registered trust deeds dated 7. 10. 1905 ,1. 2. 1908 and 21. 6. 1911 for the purpose of pooja services in the said two temples. THE trust deeds specifically enjoins that any alienation by the executants of the trust deed or their heirs would be invalid. THE first plaintiff being the wife of one of the heirs of the founders i. e. , Palaniandi Konars son Krishna Konar, she is entitled to take pan in the trust and she is interested in its performances. She is so entitled even as a worshipper in the temples. THE plaintiffs 2 to 4 also as worshippers in the temple are interested in the proper performances of the trust. THE first plaintiff was taking part in the conduct of the trust and in this respect she has been relying upon Lakshmana konar, the husband of the second defendant and Arumugha Konar. Recently arumugha Konar died in 1979. Taking advantage of this the defendants are manoeuver-ing to bring about fraudulent documents for alienating the trust properties to make illegal gain for themselves. THE second defendant being a helpless lady she is virtually under the control of the third defendant and they are negotiating with the first defendant for sale of the properties. THE trust properties having been endowed in favour of the abovesaid two temples none of the defendants has any right to deal with the properties or to alienate them. For these reasons the plaintiffs had to file the suit for declaration that the trust in question is a public one and for injunction restraining the defendants 2 and 3 from alienating the properties of the trust and for possession of the trust properties from the defendants. Subsequent to the suit the fifth plaintiff has been impleaded as an heir succeeding to the first plaintiff who died during the pendency of the suit and the first plaintiffs rights in the trust has devolved on the fifth plaintiff under a Will executed by her dated 1. 4. 1983.