K PERIAKALI POOSARI Vs. M PERIAKALI POOSARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appeal against the decree of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem in A.S.No.41 of 1979 preferred against the decree of the Additional District Munsif, Sankari at Salem in O.S.No.294 of 1977. Defendants 1,2,4,5,9 and 10 have preferred this Second Appeal and 9th defendant having died, his legal representatives have been brought on record. Plaintiff is, the first respondent and defendants 3,6,7 and 8 are the other respondents.

(2.) Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that he is entitled to do pooja in Sri Badrakali Amman Temple, Mecheri, for the first 15 days after the five days in hoisting and dehoisting of the flag in the month of Masi and for the second 15 days in the month of Vaikasi in the Chinna-poosari Murai, and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his rights. Briefly put, his case is that there are six families of Chinna-poosari out of which defendants 1,2 and 10 form the first group, plaintiff and defendants 3 and 4 form the second group and defendents 5 to 9 form the third group. Plaintiff father Madurakali Poosari and third defendant father Kuppakali Poosari are brothers. In respect of the temple there are two groups called as Periyapoosari group and Chinnapoosari group. Both the groups were doing poojas by a turn system. Plaintiff father and third defendant father were doing pooja in the months of Masi and Vaikasi, each having one half in their Murais. A mucha-lika was entered into between them on 13th August, 1941. There were earlier proceedings which ultimately resulted in Periapoosaris doing pooja for one year and Chinnapoosaris doing the next year, i.e. alternate years. As between plaintiff father and third defendant father, each was having half share in their Murais and in the past three decades this practice had continued. Plaintiff, father died one year prior to the suit and third defendant father died two years ago. As between the three groups in what months they have been doing pooja is stated in Paragraph 4 of the plaint. Consequent to defendants putting forth a different system as having come into force with effect from 28th December, 1974, he had to institute the present suit.

(3.) On behalf of the defendants, it was admitted that there were two groups called Periapoosaris and Chinnapoosaris and subsequent to earlier proceedings they were taking their turn during alternate years, that there were six families of Chinnapoosaris and that there are three groups as stated by the plaintiff. They have no knowledge of the muchalika, dated 13th August, 1941, and the year for Murais begins from first of Thai. The claim about flag hoisting for five days is not correct and it will be for eight days and all Chinnapoosaris will do poojas in common on those days. This system was followed only upto 28th December, 1974, on which date the six families of Chinnapoosaris entered into a registered agreement to revise the pooja murais as between them and, thereafter, the earlier practice as claimed by the plaintiff was not obtaining. Third defendant father who had been representing the plaintiff and his father in the earlier proceedings had signed the document on their behalf, and hence it is binding on the plaintiff. This agreement was acted upon in 1975 by plaintiff and third defendant and hence the suit deserves to be dismissed.