VENGAN POOSARI Vs. CHINNU ALIAS PATCHAMUTHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is not a suit for the establishment of the first plaintiff's right to the office of Poojari. The claim herein is distinctly limited to a building called Semmuniswamy temple situated within the boundaries set forth in the plaint and certain articles contained therein. The defendant inter alia contended that the property was not in the plaintiff's possession but in that of the defendant and it was with reference to this contention that the 4 issue was framed, viz., " Whether plaintiffs are in possession of the plaint temple and the room and articles mentioned in plaint item No. 2 I Can they sue for mere injunction."

(2.) While finding upon the evidence that the plaintiffs had been prevented from having access to the place from 1895 and that the place was locked up by the defendant and continued so ever since, the District Munsif was of opinion that as prior thereto pooja had been performed by the 2nd plaintiff, possession should be presumed to be still with the plaintiffs. But the District Judge took a different view and 1 take the effect of his finding to be that the plaintiffs are out of possession and that the defendant is in possession. Indeed it being admitted that from a time at least 4 years before the plaint the plaintiffs had been prevented from having access to the temple and that the defendant has had it under his lock and key ever since, it is not easy to see how any other conclusion can be arrived at. It would follow from some of the allegations in the plaint, that the case of the 1 plaintiff is that he is exclusively entitled to the buildings, etc. Assuming that his right is not larger than that of Mallakkal, his alleged adoptive mother, it is clear from para. 6 of Exhibit E, the judgment of the District Court in the litigation of 1881--1382, that he and the defendant are entitled to joint possession of the temple etc.

(3.) The question therefore is whether a party in the position of the plaintiff can sue for a perpetual injunction.