Judgment :- The unsuccessful defendants 3 to 5 & 7 are the appellants. 2. The first respondent herein as plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration, that the suit temple "Chetty Pillayar Koil alias Varasithi Vinayagar Koil" belongs to Sozhia Chettiar Community people of Naduveerapattu Village, for permanent injunction against defendants 3 to 7, alternatively for possession from defendants 3 to 7 on the grounds, that the suit temple exclusively belongs to Sozhia Chettiar community people living in Naduveerapattu village alone, in which no other community people, including Sozhia Chettiar community people residing in other villages are entitled to claim any right over the temple, including the administration, that when the third defendant by name Palanivel Chettiar caused disturbance, one Dandapani Chettiar filed a suit on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore in O.S.No.178/73 for declaration, that Sozhia Chettiar Community people alone are entitled to claim right over the suit temple, the same was accepted granting a decree on 19.8.1976, which became final, that the said Dandapani Chettiar when committed acts of misappropriation while maintaining the temple, Sozhia Chettiar Community people residing in Naduveerapattu Village removed him and elected Jayarama Chettiar as the Trustee, that aggrieved by the same, Dandapani Chettiar questioned the appointment of Jayarama Chettiar unsuccessfully in O.S.No.82/1985, which was confirmed by the appellate Court in A.S.No.158/86, that defendants 3 to 7 are claiming that they are the trustees of the suit temple, though they belong to C.N. Palayam Village and that in view of the dispute raised, declaration and other reliefs sought, are absolutely necessary to preserve and protect the temple. 3. Defendants 1 & 2 in their statement more or less admitting the averments in the plaint have stated, that the plaintiff was unable to recover possession of the suit property from the ex-trustee and in view of the same, there was no proper pooja in the temple, which caused grievance to the community people of Sozhia Chettiar, that on the basis of the meeting held on 10.8.1987, they have removed the plaintiff from the trusteeship and appointed five new persons, which was approved by the defendants and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. 4. 4. The appellants/defendants have contended in the written statement, that the temple and its properties are in the possession of defendants 3 to 7 and the temple is managed by the third defendant, that the decree obtained in O.S.No.178/73 will not bind the defendants, since the said suit was not filed in the representative capacity, that Sozhia Chettiar Community people of both Naduveerapattu and C.N. Palayam are entitled to manage and worship the temple, on which basis, when it was noticed that the plaintiff was not performing his duties properly, in the meeting held on 10.8.1987, defendants 3 to 7 were elected as trustees, which was approved by defendants 1 & 2 and from the said date onwards, the defendants 3 to 7 are in possession and enjoyment of the temple and its properties and in this view, the plaintiff is neither entitled to declaration nor injunction. 5. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court framing as many as four issues, took the case for trial. In support of the plaintiff's claim, 43 documents were exhibited, in addition to the examination of the trustee by name Jayaraman as P.W.1. To shadow the evidentiary value, and in order to establish the defence, on behalf of the contesting defendants, six witnesses have been examined seeking aid from 86 documents. 6. The learned Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore scanning and assessing the above materials, came to the conclusion, based upon the previous decision of the Court, that the suit temple belongs to Sozhia Chettiar Community People of Naduveerapattu alone, in which the Sozhia Chettiars living in C.N. Palayam cannot claim any right, including the management, that the removal of P.W.1 from the trusteeship in the meeting said to have been held on 10.8.1987 and election of defendants 3 to 7 as trustees of the temple are invalid. It is also held that the decision in O.S.No.178/73 is binding upon the defendants/appellants also, in view of the fact, that the decree was granted in the presence of defendants 1 & 2, who had approved the appointment of the trusteeship in this case. Thus coming to the conclusion, the suit was decreed as prayed for on 10.3.1992, which came to be challenged in A.S.No.88/92 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Cuddalore. 7. Thus coming to the conclusion, the suit was decreed as prayed for on 10.3.1992, which came to be challenged in A.S.No.88/92 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Cuddalore. 7. The learned Additional District Judge, considering the previous litigation between the parties, as well as the fact some of the appellants/defendants were parties to the previous suit, came to the conclusion that the suit property belongs to only Sozhia Chettiars residing in Naduveerapattu Villange and therefore, the resolution passed on 10.8.1987, which was approved by defendants 1 & 2 cannot have any valid enforceability. However, the learned Additional District Judge was unable to concur with the possession of the suit temple with the plaintiff, probably considering the oral evidence of Gurukkal, who has been examined as D.W.5. In this way, the learned Additional District Judge came to a conclusion, that since the plaintiff was not in possession and enjoyment of the suit temple, on the date of filing of the suit or subsequent to the date of filing of the suit, he granted a decree for possession also, directing defendants 3 to 5 to hand over the administration of the temple within three months from the date of the judgment, which came to be passed on 4.2.1993. Thus concluding, the decree and Judgment of the lower Court were confirmed, granting additional relief also, which are sought to be assailed in this appeal by the defendants/appellants. 8. Pending this appeal, appellants 1 & 2/defendants 3 & 4 died and the appeal is prosecuted by the remaining appellants. It appears, three other persons viz., Mahadevan Chettiar, Govindan Chettiar @ Pandian and Arumugham were elected or selected as Trustees in the place of three trustees already expired. Therefore, they have filed C.M.P.No.7026/2003 to implead themselves as appellants, in order to prosecute the appeal, which is opposed by the first respondent/plaintiff on the ground, that they cannot claim trusteeship, because of the fact, that the temple exclusively belongs to Sozhia Chettiar Community people of Naduveerapattu and if any, appointment is made, the same is not binding upon the plaintiff/first respondent. 9. This Court, while admitting the second appeal, has formulated the only question of law, which reads: "Whether the lower appellate Court is justified in granting a decree for possession when there is no prayer for the same in the plaint?" 10. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. 9. This Court, while admitting the second appeal, has formulated the only question of law, which reads: "Whether the lower appellate Court is justified in granting a decree for possession when there is no prayer for the same in the plaint?" 10. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. R. Mukundan and the learned counsel for the respondents, Mrs. Chitra Sampath. 11. The learned counsel for the appellants contended, that the decree and Judgment granted by the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore in O.S.No.178/73 is not binding upon the appellants, since the same was not filed against the defendants in the representative capacity, that as per the evidence, the temple belongs to Sozhia Chettiar living in both the villages Naduveerapattu and C.N.Palayam, that the plaintiff has not obtained or took possession of the management of the temple, from Dandapani Chettiar, though he failed in his attempt to challenge the appointment of Jayarama Chettiar as Trustee, that from the Dandapani Chettiar, the appellants had taken the management and they alone are managing the temple and its properties and in this view, granting injunction by the lower Court and modification of the same as recovery of possession, by the first appellate Court, that too without prayer, are not maintainable. 12. Elaborating the above arguments, seeking aid from the documentary evidence also, an attempt was made to set aside the decree and judgment. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiff/first respondent would contend, that the decree granted by the Sub Court, Cuddalore, is well binding upon the appellants also, since their interest was protected by defendants 1 & 2, supported by the third defendant and that the Court has got every power to mould the relief and in this way, moulding the relief, possession was ordered to be given to the first respondent/plaintiff, in which there cannot be any illegality, warranting interference by this Court. Thus, canvassing the reasons assigned by both the courts below, it is prayed, that the appeal should be dismissed with costs. 13. C.M.P.No.7026 of 2003 is aimed to implead three persons/third parties as appellants on the ground, that they were elected as trustees by the community people in the place of the original trustees, who died subsequently numbering three. It is not the case, that all the trustees are not available. 13. C.M.P.No.7026 of 2003 is aimed to implead three persons/third parties as appellants on the ground, that they were elected as trustees by the community people in the place of the original trustees, who died subsequently numbering three. It is not the case, that all the trustees are not available. Out of four appellants, only two died and two are available and they could very well represent the interest of others also. For the reasons, which I am going to record, that the Sozhia Chettiar Community people of C.N. Palayam has no interest, the appointment of third parties by them as Trustees cannot have any right and in this view, impleading them as appellants is unnecessary. In this view of the matter, the C.M.P. is dismissed. 14. The only substantial question of law could be disposed of even summarily, since while framing this question of law, the pleadings were not taken into consideration. In the original plaint, the plaintiff/first respondent has prayed for not only for declaration, permanent injunction, paid Court fees, but also prayed for recovery of possession as alternative relief, in case, defendants 3 to 7 dispossess the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit and put him in possession thereof, through process of Court. For this relief also, Court fee is paid, thereby showing a prayer was already made, as early as on 10.4.1990. This being the position, the question of law which reads: "Whether the lower appellate Court is justified in granting a decree for possession when there is no prayer for the same in the plaint?" may not arise for deep consideration. 15. The trial Court has not properly appreciated the oral evidence of defendants, which proved the management of the suit temple with defendants 3 to 7, whether it was on the date of filing of the suit or subsequent to the date of filing of the suit. Ignoring the evidence, since the trial Court has granted decree, when it was brought to the notice of the first appellate Court that the possession or the management of the temple was not with the plaintiff, alternative prayer was accepted and granted, since declaration was made, the recovery of possession being a consequential one. Therefore, there is no illegality or any infirmity, violating any law, while ordering recovery of possession, directing defendants 3 to 7 to hand over the management of the temple to the plaintiff. Therefore, there is no illegality or any infirmity, violating any law, while ordering recovery of possession, directing defendants 3 to 7 to hand over the management of the temple to the plaintiff. In this view, it should be concluded, no question of law or much less any substantial question of law, as framed above, arises in this case, warranting any other finding or disturbing the decree and judgment of the trial Court. Despite the fact, that only the above substantial question of law has been formulated, arguments were heard on several question of law, regarding res judicata, binding nature of the previous decree and Judgment upon the appellants, since they were not represented in the previous case, the fact being the suit itself was not filed in the representative capacity. Only in this view, to give finality, I am inclined to go into the binding nature of the decree passed by the Subordinate Judge in O.S.No.178/73, as well as the subsequent litigation between the parties. 16. The temple in question/dispute is admittedly situated at Naduveerapattu Village. C.N. Palayam is adjacent to Naduveerapattu, divided by a jungle stream, called Odai. In both the villages, Sozhia Chettiar Community people are living. The temple is having its origin spread over more than 100 years. One of the worshippers of Vinayaga, appears to have established the temple, bequeathed his properties also, probably for the benefit of Sozhia Chettiar Community people residing in Naduveerapattu Village alone, not taking into consideration the same community people living in the adjacent village. However, dispute had arisen between the same community people residing at C.N. Palayam & Naduveerapattu Village. Therefore, one Dandapani Chettiar, who belongs to Sozhia Chettiar Community of Naduveerapattu village, filed a suit against Palanivelu Chettiar, the first appellant and Iyamperumal Chettiar, including the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Madras, as defendants, seeking declaration that Chetti Pillayar Temple @ Varasakthi Vinayakar Temple situated at Naduveerapattu Village exclusively belongs to Sozhia Chettiar Community people of Naduveerapattu Village. It appears, H.R.&C.E. Department has passed an order that the temple belongs to Sozhia Chettiars of C.N.Palayam also and the Sozhia Chettiar of C.N.Palayam have a right over the suit temple, on 5.12.1971. Therefore, the above said suit was aimed to set aside that order also. Palanivelu Chettiar and Iyamperumal Chettiar belong to C.N.Palayam. It appears, H.R.&C.E. Department has passed an order that the temple belongs to Sozhia Chettiars of C.N.Palayam also and the Sozhia Chettiar of C.N.Palayam have a right over the suit temple, on 5.12.1971. Therefore, the above said suit was aimed to set aside that order also. Palanivelu Chettiar and Iyamperumal Chettiar belong to C.N.Palayam. Despite their resistance, supported by H.R. & C.E., the suit was decreed as prayed for on 19.8.1986, which became final, since not challenged. Though the suit was not filed in the representative capacity, the same Palanivel Chettiar, the first defendant in the previous suit claimed that he is also one of the trustees selected in the meeting held on 10.8.1987. H.R. & C.E. is impleaded as D1 & D2 in this suit. Considering the presence of these defendants, the learned trial Judge, considering the scope of explanation (vi) of Section 11 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, came to the conclusion, that the decision rendered in O.S.No.178/73 operates as res judicata against the defendants, which is confirmed by the first appellate Court also, cannot be assailed and that is why a feeble attempt was made before this Court, not even taking this point as the main substantial question of law, while the second appeal was admitted. Therefore, it is futile on the part of the defendants/appellants now to contend, that the decree is not binding upon them and therefore, they are entitled to agitate the right once again. Since it is held Sozhia Chettiar Community people living in C.N.Palayam have no right in the management of the suit temple, assuming that they were elected by the two villagers of the same community, they cannot hold the post, though it was approved against law by the H.R.& C.E., which was rightly appreciated and negatived, which should be sustained legally. 17. Dandapani Chettiar, who obtained a decree vesting the right of management in favour of Sozhia Chettiar people living in Naduveerapattu, appears to have not done his duty properly, in the sense, he failed to maintain the temple properly, as well as failed to manage the properties of the temple also. Therefore, Sozhia Chettiar Community people living in Naduveerapattu Village elected one Jayarama Chettiar as Trustee, which was challenged by Dandapani Chettiar in O.S.No.153/86, unsuccessfully till the first appellate Court, thereby reaching the finality also. Therefore, Sozhia Chettiar Community people living in Naduveerapattu Village elected one Jayarama Chettiar as Trustee, which was challenged by Dandapani Chettiar in O.S.No.153/86, unsuccessfully till the first appellate Court, thereby reaching the finality also. Thus the right conferred upon the Jayarama Chettiar (PW1), as the Trustee of the Temple, by the villagers of Naduveerapattu was confirmed by the decision of this Court. Assuming true, that Dandapani Chettiar has not handed over the management of the temple to Jayarama Chettiar or he had handed over the management of the temple to defendants 3 to 7 certainly it will not extinguish the right, which was already confirmed by the Court. Taking advantage of the fact, now Dandapani Chettiar is supporting his relatives, who is living in C.N.Palayam, the right conferred upon the Sozhia Chettiars of Naduveerapattu cannot be disturbed or cannot be shared also. Considering all these facts as well as the evidence available on record, both the courts have rightly came to the conclusion, that the temple belongs to Sozhia Chettiar Community people of Naduveerapattu alone, in which the appellants have no right and therefore, they cannot interfere with the management of the temple. In this way, the declaration granted, followed by injunction, as well as alternative relief granted for possession, deserve acceptance as well as confirmation. For the foregoing reasons, this point is answered accordingly. In the result, the appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits, with costs, throughout. C.M.P.No.7026 of 2003 is also dismissed.