Judgment :- (Appeal filed against the Judgment and Decree of the Subordinate Judge, Trichirapalli dated 4.10.1982, made in A.S.No.61/1982, reversing the Judgment and Decree of the District Munsif, Trichirapalli, dated 11.01.1982, made in O.S.No.1949/1979.) This second appeal is preferred against the order of Judgment and Decree of the First Additional Subordinate Court, Trichy, passed in A.S.No.61/1982, reversing the Judgment and Decree of the learned District Munsif, Trichy, made in O.S.No.1949/1949 and dismissing the suit. The Plaintiffs are the Appellants. 2. The Suit Property relates to a site in T.S.No.339/1, Convent Road, Trichy. It comprises of a Temple called Paripoorana Vinayagar Temple [herein after referred to as 'the suit Temple'] and a thatched shed thereon, bearing D.No.12/D1. 3. Admitted facts are that the Suit Property was assigned by the Government for the Idol of Paripoorana Vinayagar, by an order dated 08.10.1945. One Muthusami Pattayadar was the custodian and Manager of the Temple for many years till his death in March 1972. 4. Case of the Plaintiffs is that after the death of Muthusami Pattayadar, there arose necessity to elect persons to be in charge of the management of the Temple. After giving due publicity, a meeting was held on 12.03.1972 and Plaintiffs were elected as President and Vice President and the second Defendant as a Committee Member. According to the Plaintiffs, the suit is filed by them in the capacity of they being Office Bearers of the Welfare Committee as well as in their capacity as Worshippers of the suit Temple. In view of the prior litigation in O.S.No.484/1976 and O.S.No.103/1977, filed by the third parties, the first Defendant – Municipal Council is also impleaded as a party, for the purpose of completion and binding adjudication. The Plaintiffs have alleged that the second Defendant Mahamani has been falsely claiming himself as the Hereditary Trustee of the Idol. He has not been appointed by any Authority or elected as Trustee of the Temple. The Temple has been managed by the Welfare Committee and the Committee alone is in possession and control of the suit Idol onbehalf of the locality. Being in occupation of the property due to coincidence of circumstances, the second Defendant filed the suit in O.S.No.484/1976 and he started using the Temple as house for taxi business and the Madapalli as his personal room attached with phone etc. Being in occupation of the property due to coincidence of circumstances, the second Defendant filed the suit in O.S.No.484/1976 and he started using the Temple as house for taxi business and the Madapalli as his personal room attached with phone etc. After shifting the Idol to the present premises, the second Defendant has put up construction using the same for personal use, which is totally unauthorised and he has no authority. In the meeting held on 14.03.1972, the second Defendant himself has signed in the Minutes Book. The second Defendant has no semblance of right to the Suit Property and hence his possession is unlawful. Hence the suit has been filed for recovery of possession and mesne profits. 5. Denying the allegations, the second Defendant has filed the Written Statement contending that the Plaintiffs have no Locus-standi to represent the Plaintiff Idol nor are they President and Vice President of the Welfare Committee to manage the affairs of the Temple, as falsely claimed by them. Muthusami Pattayadar was the Hereditary Trustee of the Temple for many years. D-2 was also a Trustee along with him and even after his (Muthusami Pattayadar's) death on 14.3.1972, D-2 continued to be the Hereditary Trustee of the same. The allegations regarding the meeting on 14.3.1972 is false and untrue. The Defendant alone has been managing the affairs of the Idol, performing Kumbabishegam etc. The Minutes Book, which was produced, has been tampered with and false entries had been made in the pages, which were blank. D-2 alone is the Manager looking after the Idol. The Plaintiffs have no right either to manage the affairs or to take possession. The suit has been filed only out of jealousy and the Plaintiffs are not entitled to the reliefs sough for. 6. On the above pleadings, in the trial Court, seven issues were framed. In consideration of the evidence, the learned District Munsif found that the earlier Judgment in O.S.No.103/1977 would not operate as Resjudicata and answered the Issue no.1 accordingly. The trial Court was of the view that the second Defendant cannot claim his right to the suit Idol and the property as the Trustee, after the death of Muthusami Pattayadar. The trial Court found that the second Defendant is not a Hereditary Trustee and that there is no evidence showing that the second Defendant is the Hereditary Trustee. The trial Court was of the view that the second Defendant cannot claim his right to the suit Idol and the property as the Trustee, after the death of Muthusami Pattayadar. The trial Court found that the second Defendant is not a Hereditary Trustee and that there is no evidence showing that the second Defendant is the Hereditary Trustee. In reference to a number of documents filed by D-2, the trial Court held that those documents would not establish D-2's right to be in possession of the Suit Property. Placing reliance upon Exs.A-1, A-2, A-3, A-8 and A-9, the trial Court found that the Plaintiffs are the President and Vice President of the Welfare Committee and that they are entitled to be in Management of the suit Idol and are entitled to recovery of possession from the second Defendant and decreed the suit accordingly. Aggrieved over the decreeing of the suit, D-2 has preferred the Appeal. 7. The Lower Appellate Court reversed the Judgment of the trial Court finding that the Plaintiffs have not proved that they are elected as the President and Vice President of the Welfare Committee. The Lower Appellate Court raised doubts regarding the writings in Ex.A-2 – Minutes Book, pertaining to the alleged meeting on 14.03.1972. Finding that there was nothing to show that the Plaintiffs are elected as President and Vice President of the Welfare Committee, the lower Appellate Court found that if really they were so elected, the Plaintiffs would not have remained quiet without taking steps for recovery of possession. Referring to O.S.No.103/ 1977, the lower Appellate Court also held that the first Plaintiff having figured as witness onbehalf of the Plaintiff in the earlier suit, cannot seek to recover possession by filing a separate suit. In its view, dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.103/1977, would have a bearing upon the rights of the parties. Pointing out that the long possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property by the second Defendant and referring to a number of documents produced by the second Defendant, the lower Appellate Court reversed the Judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved over the dismissal of the suit, the Plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal. 8. When the Second Appeal was pending, the second Defendant has died. His Legal Representatives have been impleaded as Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. 9. Aggrieved over the dismissal of the suit, the Plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal. 8. When the Second Appeal was pending, the second Defendant has died. His Legal Representatives have been impleaded as Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. 9. The learned counsel for the Plaintiffs/Appellants has submitted that the Appellate Court erred in attaching much weight to O.S.No.103/1977. Referring to the entries in Ex.A-2 - Note Book and Ex.A-8 – Minutes Book, the learned counsel for the Plaintiffs submitted that those entries and writings would clearly establish their election as the Office Bearers which is inclusive of the election of D-2 as a Committee Member. It is further submitted that the Plaintiffs have clearly indicated that they have filed the suit not only in their capacity as the elected Office Bearers of the Welfare Committee but also in their capacity as worshippers and the trial Court has rightly decreed the suit, directing D-2 to hand over vacant possession. It is further submitted that the lower Appellate Court erred in raising doubts about the election of the Plaintiffs as the Office Bearers and erred in attaching much weight to the documents produced by the D-2 and the Judgment of the Appellate Court is to be set aside, restoring the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court. 10. Countering the arguments, the learned counsel for the second Defendant has submitted that since the dispute relates to the office of the Hereditary Trustee, the civil Court has no jurisdiction. It is further submitted that excepting Ex.A-2, there is no other document showing that the Plaintiffs have anything to do with the Temple. Drawing the attention of the Court to the findings of the lower Appellate Court, the learned counsel has submitted that the first Appellate Court has rightly raised doubts regarding the writings in Ex.A-2 – Note Book. It is further submitted that the suit being one for recovery of possession, heavy burden lies upon the Plaintiffs to prove their case and the Plaintiffs have not discharged the burden by adducing evidence in proving their entitlement to be in management of the suit Temple. 11. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law :- 1. Whether the finding of the Court below that the Plaintiffs have not proved their right to represent the Plaintiff Temple is correct in law ? 2. 11. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law :- 1. Whether the finding of the Court below that the Plaintiffs have not proved their right to represent the Plaintiff Temple is correct in law ? 2. Whether the claim of the Defendant that he is the Hereditary Trustee, is recognisable by the civil Court in view of Section63-B of the H.R. & C.E. Act ? 3. Whether the Court below is correct in law in questioning the genuineness of the Plaintiff's documents when they were not impugned in the trial Court when they were marked in evidence." 12. The suit is for recovery of possession. It is well settled that in a suit for recovery of possession of land, onus lies upon the Plaintiff to prove the title to be in the management of the suit Temple. Plaintiffs could succeed only if they establish their title and entitlement to be in management of the Paripoorana Vinayagar Temple. In the suit, Plaintiffs have claimed recovery of possession on the ground that they are elected as President and Vice President of the Welfare Committee and they claim to be in management of the Temple. Referring to the entries in page 4 of Ex.A-2 - Note Book, the trial Court found that the entries thereon give out the particulars of the meeting viz., to decide over the future management of the suit Idol. The trial Court negatived the contention of the 2nd Defendant disputing the above said entry in page 4 of Ex.A-4 - Note Book. The entries in Ex.A-2 is as under :- "khhpak;kd; Jiz 1972 k; tUc&k khh;r; khjk; 14k; njjpr; rhpahd jkpH; tpnuhjpfpUJ tUc&k g';Fdp khjk; 1k; njjp brt;tha; fpHik. jpUr;rp nkyg;g[J}h; fpuhk gl;nljhUk;. ghpg{uz tpehafh; nfhapy; ou!;oa[khd fhj;j bgUkhs.; Kj;Juh$h. Fkhh;. Kj;Jrhkp Kj;Juh$h fhykhfptpl;lgoahy; mz;zhh; ftdpj;J te;j fpuhk bghJ fhhpa';fisa[k; khhpak;kz; nfhapypYk; ghpg{uz tpehafh; nfhtpypYk;. eil bgw;W te;j. ,dp eilbgw ,Uf;fpd;w tpnrr';fisa[k;. jpUtpHhf;fisa[k;. me;j nfhtpypfs; rk;ke;jg;gl;l midj;J fhhpa';fisa[k; nky;go gl;lhjhuUf;F gjpyhf xU fkpl;oia mikj;J nkw;fz;;l fhhpa';fis ftdpj;Jf; bfhs;stjw;fhf /////" 13. On the above entry, the learned Subordinate Judge raised doubts that it might have been subsequently written. By a careful consideration of the above writing in page 4 of Ex.A-2, findings of the lower Appellate Court appears to be correct. Entry on 14.03.1972 stating about the necessity of future management of the Vinayagar Idol is in piecemeal. On the above entry, the learned Subordinate Judge raised doubts that it might have been subsequently written. By a careful consideration of the above writing in page 4 of Ex.A-2, findings of the lower Appellate Court appears to be correct. Entry on 14.03.1972 stating about the necessity of future management of the Vinayagar Idol is in piecemeal. Following the above said entry, there is a Minutes entry referring to the meeting on 19.03.1972, held in Mariamman Temple. After the entry regarding the meeting on 19.03.1972, the attending members have signed, including the first Plaintiff Elumalai. At the end of the meeting on 19.03.1972, the following entry has been made :: "jiyth; vGkiy Kj;Juh$h fkpl;o bkk;gh;fs; 1/kUij Kj;Juh$h 2/kfhkzp Kj;Juh$h 3/itunty; Kj;Juh$h 4/tp!;typ';fk; gps;is 5/T.uhkyp';f Kjypahh;, B.Com. 6/fhj;jhd; fhsjpahh; 7/uhke;jpu eha[L 8/M.gpr;ir Kj;Juh$h Mfpath;fis Vfkdjhf njh;e;J vLf;fg;gl;lJ/" At the end, the first Plaintiff has signed as the President and others have also signed. In the meeting on 19.03.1972, there is nothing to indicate about the Management of the Temples particularly of Paripoorana Vinayagar Idol/Temple. 14. The above entry describing the first Plaintiff as President of the Welfare Committee cannot be connected to the earlier alleged writing and entry regarding 14.03.1972. The alleged entry on 14.03.1972 is not signed by others. Further, there is no indication indicating the alleged entries on 14.03.1972 to the subsequent entries. The second Defendant has raised the defence plea that the Minutes Book produced in the suit have been tampered with and false entries have been made in the pages, which were left blank. This aspect was not properly appreciated by the trial Court. The trial Court proceeded with the presumptive footing that after the death of Muthusami Pattayadar, there arose a necessity to elect Office Bearers of the Village Committee and inferred that the meeting must have taken place immediately after the death of Muthusami Pattayadar, mainly for the purpose of electing the Office Bearers of the Village Committee. The learned District Munsif erred in drawing such inference for the purpose of the meeting. The trial Court erred in inferring the genuineness of the meeting and finding that after the death of Muthusami Pattayadar, the meeting must have taken place only for the purpose of electing the Office Bearers of the Village Committee and for maintenance of the Paripoorana Vinayagar Temple. The trial Court erred in inferring the genuineness of the meeting and finding that after the death of Muthusami Pattayadar, the meeting must have taken place only for the purpose of electing the Office Bearers of the Village Committee and for maintenance of the Paripoorana Vinayagar Temple. The first Appellate Court has rightly raised doubts regarding the entries in Ex.A-2 and found that the Plaintiffs have not proved to be in management of the Temple. This finding of the first Appellate Court raising doubts about the entries in Ex.A-2 appear to be correct. The first Appellate Court has rightly found that the Plaintiffs have not proved that they have been elected as President and Vice President of the Welfare Committee mainly for the purpose of Management of the suit Temple. 15. If really the Plaintiffs were so elected as the Office Bearers of the Welfare Committee for the purpose of management of the Vinayagar Temple, the Plaintiffs would have paid the tax or other acts of exercising the management over the suit Temple. From 1972 to 1979, absolutely there was no such acts of management. Nor any evidence had been produced showing the exercise of such acts of management over the suit Temple. 16. The militating circumstances against the contention of the Plaintiffs is the earlier suit O.S.No.103/1977 filed before the District Munsif Court, Trichy. One Sannasi and one Natarajan have filed O.S.No.103/1977 against Trichy Municipality, second Defendant – Mahamani, showing the first Defendant Elumalai as the third Defendant. Idol of Paripoorana Vinayagar of Melapudur was impleaded as fourth Defendant. In the cause title, the Idol is described as being represented by Elumalai/first Plaintiff. The said suit was filed by the said Sannasi and Natarajan to direct D-2 to delivery possession of the suit property and for mesne profits either to the Plaintiffs or to the third Defendant viz, the first Plaintiff Elumalai, who is alleged to be the President of the Welfare Committee. This relief sought for by the said Sannasi and Natarajan was for recovery of possession either for themselves or to Elumalai the first Plaintiff herein. It is pertinent to note that in the said suit, the first Plaintiff/Elumalai has figured as witness on the side of the Plaintiffs thereon in O.S.No.103 of 1977. Both parties have adduced evidence. This relief sought for by the said Sannasi and Natarajan was for recovery of possession either for themselves or to Elumalai the first Plaintiff herein. It is pertinent to note that in the said suit, the first Plaintiff/Elumalai has figured as witness on the side of the Plaintiffs thereon in O.S.No.103 of 1977. Both parties have adduced evidence. In consideration of the evidence in O.S.No.103/1977, the learned District Munsif found that the second Defendant Mahamani had been in long possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property and that there is no valid reason for filing of the suit by the Worshippers. In O.S.No.103/1977, the learned District Munsif found that there is no evidence proving the case of the Plaintiffs and there is no valid reason to direct the second Defendant to deliver possession of the Suit Property either to the Plaintiffs/worshippers or to Elumalai (first Plaintiff), who is said to be the President of the Welfare Committee. 17. The findings in O.S.No.103/1977 is relevant to be noted:- "Therefore there is no valid reason for filing of this suit by the worshippers directing the 2nd Defendant to deliver possession of the suit Temple to the worshippers or to the 3rd Defendant, the President of the Welfare Committee." From the above findings, three things emerge :- (i) long possession of the suit Temple by the second Defendant has been upheld in the earlier suit in O.S.No.103/1977; (ii) plaintiffs thereon, as worshippers, or Elumalai who is said to be the President of the Welfare Committee, are not entitled to seek for possession; (iii) that the third Defendant Elumalai figured as witness on the side of the Plaintiff. Claim for recovery of possession either for the worshippers or for Ezhumalai was negatived. The above aspects show that the present subject matter of the suit was substantially in dispute between the parties in the earlier litigation in O.S.No.103/1977. While so, the trial Court erred in saying that the earlier Judgment in O.S.No.103/1977 would not operate as Resjudicata. It may not exactly operate as Resjudicata but the dismissal of the suit O.S.No.103/1977 has a definite bearing on the contentions of the parties. The first Appellate Court has rightly taken note of dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.103/1977 and the earlier finding that the second Defendant is in long possession and management of the suit Temple. 18. It may not exactly operate as Resjudicata but the dismissal of the suit O.S.No.103/1977 has a definite bearing on the contentions of the parties. The first Appellate Court has rightly taken note of dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.103/1977 and the earlier finding that the second Defendant is in long possession and management of the suit Temple. 18. The Plaintiffs have neither proved their right of management nor proved their right to recovery of possession. While so, the Plaintiffs cannot take advantage of the weakness of the defence. In O.S.No.103/1977, the Court has held "that the second Defendant is not the Trustee of Paripoorana Vinayagar Temple". Similarly in O.S.No.103/1977, the Court has observed, "that the suit O.S.No.103/1977 is not the suit filed by Welfare Committee or by its President for recovery of possession of the Temple and its properties from the second Defendant". Such findings are only a passing observation and cannot be taken advantage by the Plaintiffs. No doubt in the earlier suit, O.S.No.103/1977, Idol of Sri Paripoorana Vinayagar Temple, Melapudur was said to be represented by Elumalai. But such description of the Temple being represented by Ezhumalai is only a self-serving statement. Plaintiffs cannot take advantage of such description of the suit Temple in the earlier suit nor could they take advantage of the passing observation made that the suit is not the one filed by the Welfare Committee. 19. Hardly any evidence has been adduced by the Plaintiffs showing their right of management of the suit Temple. While so, the Plaintiffs cannot claim to recover possession. As against the scant evidence by the Plaintiffs, the second Defendant - Mahamani has adduced sufficient evidence showing his long possession and enjoyment. Ex.B-4 is the order of the Settlement Tahsildar Trichy, (dated 04.11.1969) ordering registry of 553 sq.ft. in the name of Paripoorana Vinayagar Temple. In Ex.B-4, Muthusami Pattayadar and Mahamani have claimed right to 553 sq.ft. on the strength of Assignment Order by the Collector. In the proceedings before the Settlement Tahsildar, D-2 Mahamani, as DW-1, has deposed about the entitlement of the Temple. By perusal of Ex.B-4, it is seen that a Village Headman was examined as CW-1, who has also stated that Mahamani and Muthusami Padayadar were the then Trustees of the Temple. D-2/Mahamani has also filed a suit O.S.No.426/1969 against St.Joseph's Anglo Indian High School for Permanent Injunction. By perusal of Ex.B-4, it is seen that a Village Headman was examined as CW-1, who has also stated that Mahamani and Muthusami Padayadar were the then Trustees of the Temple. D-2/Mahamani has also filed a suit O.S.No.426/1969 against St.Joseph's Anglo Indian High School for Permanent Injunction. That suit has ended in compromise, as seen from Ex.B-3 – Compromise Petition. 20. The second Defendant continued to be in possession of the Suit Property and in management of the Paripoorana Vinayagar Temple for a long time. Raising objection to the location of the Temple, Assistant Engineer Highways had issued Ex.B-6 to the second Defendant Mahamani directing him to shift the Temple backward and thereby, remove the obstruction caused to the formation of the highways. Service Connection S.C.No.4975 has been obtained for Sri Paripoorana Vinayagar Koil – M.Mahamani. Electricity Consumption charges have been paid only by D-2. For the suit Temple, House Tax has been levied in the name of D-2. Exs.B-11 to B-25 are the House Tax receipts paid by second Defendant as the Manager of the Temple. The trial Court has brushed aside the overwhelming evidence adduced by D-2 on the flimsy ground that they do not confer any right upon D-2 over the suit Temple. Trial Court has committed serious and substantial error in not properly appreciating the documentary evidence adduced by D-2. 21. The trial Court has erred in attaching much weight to Ex.A-1 and the entries made in Exs.A-2, A-8 and A-9. In proper appreciation of the evidence, the first Appellate Court has rightly reversed the findings of the trial Court. Appreciation of the evidence and the reasoning of the first Appellate Court are well balanced and there is no reason to take a different view. This second appeal has no merits and is bound to fail. 22. The Judgment of the Appellate Court – Subordinate Court, Tiruchirapalli (dated 4.10.1982) made in A.S.No.61/ 1982 (reversing the Judgment and Decree of the District Munsif, Trichirapalli, dated 11.01.1982, made in O.S.No.1949/1979) is confirmed and the Second Appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.