MUTHUSWAMI GURUKKAL Vs. AYYASAMI THEVAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals by' the plaintiffs arise out of interlocutory proceedings under Order 39, Civil Procedure G6de, in two suits O.S. No. 264 of 1956 and O.S. No. 267 of 1956 instituted under Section 62 of Madras Act XIX of 1951.

(2.) THE Area Committee appointed defendants 1 to 5 as the trustees of the suit temples. That was how they were arrayed in both the suits. In O.S. No. 267 of 1956 the plaintiff and defendants 6 to 12 claimed that they were the hereditary trustees of the temples. In the other suite O.S. No. 264 of 1956, the 3rd plaintiff, Narasimha Ayyangar, claimed he was, the hereditary trustee along with two others. Those claims were negatives by the Deputy. Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments in proceedings under Section 57(b) of Act XIX. Of 1951, and that decision was upheld by the Commissioner. The plaintiffs filed the suits for which statutory provision was made in Section 62 of the Act. The main reliefs asked for in O.S. No. 267 of 1956 were (1) to declare the plaintiff and defendants 6 to 12 as hereditary trustees of the temple and (2) to set aside the order of the Commissioner refusing to recognize the plaintiff and defendants 6 to 12 as hereditary trustees. The reliefs asked for in the other suit O.S. No. 264 1956 were in similar terms.

(3.) AFTER instituting the suits, each of the petitioners -appellants applied for an interim injunction to restrain defendants 1 to 5, the trustees appointed by the: Area Committee, from interfering with the possession of the petitioner and his co -trustees pending disposal of the suit.