N.S. NANJUNDASAMY Vs. V. NANJUNDASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in O.S.No.264 of 1989, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Udumalpet is the appellant. The respondents filed a suit for framing a scheme pursuant to the partition deed dated 08.05.1886 and for directing the appellant/defendant to render accounts in respect of the income from the trust properties for three years preceding the file of the suit and directing the appellant/defendant to hand over the possession of the trust properties.

(2.) The case of the respondents/plaintiffs is as follows:

(3.) The appellant/defendant also filed their counter statement denying the rights of the plaintiffs that they are also entitled to hold the post of trustees. But he admitted that the temple is a family temple and the plaintiffs are the members of the family, but the defendant is managing the temple as the hereditary trustee and therefore, the suit filed under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not maintainable. He also stated that in O.P.No.50 of 1930 filed on the file of the District Court, Coimbatore, the temple was declared as private temple of the defendant's family and the predecessors in title of the plaintiffs filed O.A.No.121/79 before the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment department to declare the temple as public temple and that was contested and the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment department accepted the case of the defendant that the temple was a private temple of the defendant's family and as per the documents executed within the family on 14.11.1985 and 8.5.86, it was agreed that the income from the "B" Schedule properties should be used for performing poojas and for maintaining the temple and to conduct festivals. But it was not agreed that the members of the three families must perform pooja and the plaintiffs are only entitled to worship and they have no right to the management of the temple and only the eldest male member was entitled to manage the affairs of the temple and in that manner, the defendant's father Sivasubramania Gounder was managing the temple as trustee and as per the decree passed in O.S.No.226/54, the defendant/appellant was appointed as Managing Trustee of the temple and the plaintiffs were bound by the same as they were also the parties in the said suit and the accounts are properly maintained and audited and O.S.No.507/86 was filed by the brother of Aruchamy Poojari, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Pollachi and that suit was dismissed and the plaintiffs attempted to take management of the temple and that was prevented by the defendant and therefore, the present suit was filed and therefore, false allegations are made as if the accounts were not maintained and poojas were not performed and festivals were not conducted and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.