Judgment :- 1. Defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants. Plaintiff filed the suit praying for injunction mandatory and prohibitory. Defendants 1 and 3 resisted the suit contending that day to day functions of the temple were not properly conducted due to impecunious circumstances and so the worshippers formed a committee with the object of assisting the temple authorities in the conduct of the affairs of the temple, that the committee never interfered with the management of the temple and that it wanted only to construct a kitchen (Pakasala) outside the temple and the same is intended to be donated to the temple. The trial Court dismissed the suit. In A. S.27 of 1980 the Principal Sub Judge held that the defendants have no manner of right to construct a kitchen in the temple premises. The Sub Judge decreed the suit and prohibitory injunction was granted restraining the defendants from putting up any building in the temple compound. 2. Maintainability of the suit is challenged on the ground that plaintiff who is only a pujari has no locus standi to file the suit. The allegation in the plaint that the plaintiff is a trustee of the temple is denied by the defendants. Counsel for the defendants submitted that there is no shred of evidence to hold that the plaintiff is a trustee of the temple and as he is only a pujari he is not competent to file the suit. Counsel submitted that there is evidence that the plaintiff has to place the keys before the Devaswom authorities and that would definitely show that he is not a trustee of the temple. Counsel further submitted that from Ext. A-2 it can only be found that plaintiff is only a pujari and not a trustee and hence he could not have instituted the suit. In other words, counsel argued that is view of the paucity of evidence that the plaintiff is a trustee the suit ought to have been held to be not maintainable. 3. D. W.1 admitted that the poojas and administration of the temple are being conducted by the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant. Thus the admitted case is that the plaintiff and 3rd defendant performed not only the religious functions in the temple but also temporal matters connected with it. Pujari is often appointed by the founder or a shebait to conduct she worship in the temple. Thus the admitted case is that the plaintiff and 3rd defendant performed not only the religious functions in the temple but also temporal matters connected with it. Pujari is often appointed by the founder or a shebait to conduct she worship in the temple. In Veerhasavaradhya v. Devotees of Lingadagudi Mutt (A. I. R.1973 Mysore 280) it has been held that pujari is not a shebait or Dharmadarshi but is appointed by the Shebait or Dharmadarshi or Dharmadhikari for conducting the worship and can be removed for misconduct or indiscipline and cannot alienate the property of the religious trust. An archak or pujari in a temple is not expected to be in control of the administrative affairs of the temple. The pujari is appointed by the shebait for the purpose of conducting the worship. Pujari's work is confined to the proper conduct of the worship in the temple. He cannot meddle with the administration or interfere with the temporal affairs of the temple. He is liable to be removed for any act of misconduct or indiscipline. In Ananda Chandra Chakrabarti v. Brojo Lal Singha (A. I. R.1923 Calcutta 142) it is held: "It must not be overlooked that the Pujari or archak is not the shebait; be is appointed by the shebait as the purohit to conduct the worship; but that does not transfer the right and obligations of the shebait to the purohit, and he is not entitled to be continued as a matter of right in his office as pujari. It Pujari or Archak is a servant of the Shebait. No part of the rights and obligation of the Shebait are normally transferred to a Pujari. In Gouri Shankar v. Ambika Dutt (A. I. R.1954 Patna 196) it is held as follows: "A pujari or archak is not a shebait. A pujari is appointed by the Shebait as the purohit to conduct the worship. But that does not transfer the rights find obligations of the shebait to the purohit." As the pujari is appointed by the shebait for the performance of religious ceremonies and particularly to conduct the warship he cannot assume the rule of the shebait and manage the affairs of the temple. 4. There may be cases where archak or pujari can himself be a shebait. 4. There may be cases where archak or pujari can himself be a shebait. If the founder of a temple vests the shebaitship right in a family of priests who perform the religious rites of the deity also, the office of the archak and shebait can be united is one person or persons. In some temples pujari may discharge the functions of a trustee. Such a situation may arise in temples whose endowments are inconsiderable. When the two offices of the trustee and pujari remain separate, it is the former who is entitled to be in management of the temple properties and assets. In such cases pujari cannot have any control over the administration of the temple and its properties. In temples which are net affluent a pujari may discharge the functions of a trustee. It is in evidence that Keraleswara Siva Temple is not affluent. That may be the reason why performance of the poojas and the administration of the temple are being done by the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant. 5. The duties of a Shebait are both spiritual and temporal. When a Shebait is himself the pujari he has a dual role. In view of the dual capacity of the plaintiff as a shebait and pujari it cannot be said that the suit is not maintainable. 6. First defendant claim that the committee has been helping the trustee of the temple for the proper conduct of the affairs of the temple including conducting of festivals. It is the case of the defendants that their attempt to construct a kitchen and to donate the same to the temple can never be characterised as a malafide attempt or as an attempt with ulterior motives to torpedo the best interest of the temple. The question is whether the first defendant can be allowed to put up a new structure without the permission of the trustees however laudable it be. Plaintiff contends that the construction of the proposed kitchen on the northern side of the temple is not at all warranted. The defendants could not establish the right by which they could thrust upon the temple a structure which the trustees of the temple do not want. At the plaintiff is in charge of the administration of the temple it is for him to decide whether any construction is necessary in the interest of the temple or not. The defendants could not establish the right by which they could thrust upon the temple a structure which the trustees of the temple do not want. At the plaintiff is in charge of the administration of the temple it is for him to decide whether any construction is necessary in the interest of the temple or not. Someone else cannot foist a particular construction in the temple compound stating that it would be beneficial to the temple and it is intended to be gratis. The learned Sub Judge has rightly found that the defendants have no right to put up any structure is the temple premises. The judgment and decree of the Sub Judge are hereby confirmed. There is no merit in the Second Appeal and hence the same is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. Dismissed.