JUDGMENT :- The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant herein. The appellant filed the suit for permanent injunction, restraining the respondents from constructing any building in the suit property, without the permission of the appellant. 2. The case of the appellant/plaintiff was that the suit property situate in S.No.95/1, having an extent of 14.25 acres is classified as temple-poramboke and it belongs to the following temples viz., Arulmigu Ekaambareeswar, Balsubramaniyaswamy, Periya Mariyamman, Chellandiyamman, Muniyappan, Pillaiyar Koil and Ramanathasamy Mutt. All those said temples, as well as the remaining extent of vacant site are in the management and possession of the appellant-temple. Even in the year 1982, when the Panchayat Union, attempted to construct a Maternity Ward in the suit property, without the permission of the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, the appellant-temple filed a Writ Petition, W.P.No.10836 of 1982 before this Court and obtained an order of Stay. Thereafter, the Panchayat Union, also dropped the idea of constructing the building and in the year 1987, the appellant-temple wanted to construct a Kitchen in the suit property and that was objected to, by the respondents, who are representing Seguntha Mudaliar Community. Therefore, the appellant/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.642 of 1987, for the relief of injunction, restraining the said community members and the said suit was dismissed. Against the same, an Appeal was filed, being A.S.No.117 of 1994, and it was allowed and the decree passed in O.S.No.642 of 1987, was set aside and therefore, the appellant/plaintiff alone has got title to the entire suit property and the respondents have no right/title and they are only entitled to come and worship the deities and perform pooja during festival season and the entire suit property is in possession and management of the appellant/plaintiff. As the respondents are attempting to construct a building in the portion of the suit property, the suit was filed for the relief of injunction. 3. The respondents were impleaded as representatives of the Seguntha Mudaliar Community, Alwaipatti Village, and they filed a statement, disputing the possession and title of the appellant/plaintiff to the suit property. As the respondents are attempting to construct a building in the portion of the suit property, the suit was filed for the relief of injunction. 3. The respondents were impleaded as representatives of the Seguntha Mudaliar Community, Alwaipatti Village, and they filed a statement, disputing the possession and title of the appellant/plaintiff to the suit property. They further stated that the temple, represented by the Trustees, filed a suit in O.S.No.182 of 1983, seeking for the relief of declaration and injunction in respect of the property situate in S.No.95/1, which was of an extent of 17.03 acres and that suit was dismissed holding that the appellant/plaintiff has no title to the suit property. Thereafter, another suit in O.S.No.642 of 1987, was filed by the appellant/plaintiff, represented by its Executive Officer, for injunction, in respect of the property in S.Nos.95/1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of an extent of 17.03 acres and that suit was also dismissed and in an appeal filed by the appellant-temple in A.S.No.117 of 1994, the Appellate Court only provided the relief holding that the appellant-temple is entitled to put up a Kitchen in the portion measuring 30 x 12 x 8 and in respect of the remaining portion, the Appellate Court held that the appellant/plaintiff was not in possession and enjoyment and confirmed the findings of the Trial Court. The Appellate Court, further held that in the suit property, there is a play ground, Midday Nutrition Meal Scheme building and Water Tank and the Seguntha Mudaliar Community people are also having their pavadis for their weaving purpose. Hence, the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff is barred by res judicata and the appellant/plaintiff is not entitled to the entire suit property. 4. The Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the suit is barred by res judicata and in an earlier two suits in O.S.No.182 of 1983, and O.S.No.642 of 1987, the title and possession of the appellant/plaintiff was negatived and the appellant/plaintiff is not in possession of the property and even according to the admission of the appellant/plaintiff that in the suit property, the Segunthar Mudaliar Community people have put up their pavadis for their weaving purpose and the suit property is also used as Playground and a Water Tank and Midday Nutrition Meal Scheme building were also constructed in the suit property. Therefore, the appellant/plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of injunction. 5. Therefore, the appellant/plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of injunction. 5. The Lower Appellate Court also concurred with the findings of the Trial Court, after independently appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and also held that the suit is barred by res judicata and in an earlier two suits, the right of the appellant-temple was negatived and therefore, the appellant/plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of injunction. Hence, this Second Appeal. 6. Though various substantial questions of law were raised in the Second Appeal, having regard to the facts of the present case, the following substantial questions of law alone arises for consideration:- i) Whether the suit filed is barred by res judicata? ii) Whether the plaintiff-Temple is entitled to claim possession on the basis, that the suit property is described as temple-poramboke in the Revenue records? 7. The appellant/plaintiff filed a Miscellaneous Petition No.2 of 2011, under Order 41, Rule 27 of C.P.C., to receive additional evidence to prove that in the revenue records, the suit property is mentioned as temple-poramboke and therefore, those documents are necessary for arriving at a proper conclusion and the documents should be received as additional evidence. 8. The learned Senior Counsel Mr.Chellaiah, for the appellant/plaintiff vehemently contended that both the Courts below, without properly appreciating the schedule of properties given in the earlier two suits, and the schedule of property mentioned in the present suit, erred in holding that the suit is barred by res judicata and the judgments rendered in O.S.No.642 of 1987 and O.S.No.182 of 1983, will operate as res judicata. He further submitted that when the revenue records clearly mentions that the suit property is a temple-poramboke, and is also evidenced by the additional document filed by the appellant/plaintiff, the appellant- temple has got title to the suit property and therefore, it has got every right to restrain the respondents from putting up construction in the suit property, without their permission. 9. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff also contended that though the suit property is used as Playground or a Water Tank and Midday Nutrition Meal Scheme building were also constructed, that would not take away the right of the appellant-temple from preventing the respondents from putting up further construction in the suit property, as the same has been mentioned as temple-poramboke in the revenue records. It is his further contention that the suit property is having an extent of 14.25 acres of land in S.No.95/1 in Alwaipatti Village, and in the earlier suits, viz., the suit filed in O.S.No.182 of 1983, the suit property was having an extent of 19.03 acres in S.No.95/1 and in the suit in O.S.No.642 of 1987, the suit property was 95/1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, having an extent of 17.03 acres and in the present suit, the appellant/plaintiff claims right in respect of 14.25 acres in S.No.95/1 and therefore, the suit properties are not an identical and the earlier judgments cannot be operated as res judicata. 10. Per contra, Mr.T.Murugamanickam, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the suit in O.S.No.182 of 1983, the learned District Munsif, has held after elaborately discussing that originally the land in S.No.95/1 was having an extent of 17.03 acres and that was re-classified into S.Nos.95/2, 3, 4 and 5 and S.No.95/1 after re-subdivision, is having an extent of 14.25 acres and the plaintiff in that suit viz., the appellant/plaintiff herein has no title or possession over the same. Further, in the suit in O.S.No.642 of 1987 also, the appellant/plaintiff was found to be not in possession of the entire extent of 17.03 acres and the injunction prayed for by the appellant/plaintiff was negatived and in the first appeal, the decree was modified to an extent that the appellant/plaintiff was permitted to construct a Kitchen in the portion of the land adjoining the temple and in respect of the remaining land, the injunction prayed for by the appellant-temple was negatived and the order of the Trial Court was confirmed. Therefore, the present suit is barred by the res judicata. 11. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that merely because, the property has been described as temple-poramboke in the revenue records, that will not confer any right on any person, or villagers and relied upon a judgment reported in (1930) 32 Law Weekly 211 in the case of (A.Venkataswami Naidu Vs. Agaram Chenga Reddi and others). He further relied upon the judgment reported in (1996) 6 S.C.C. 223 in the case of ( Sawarni Vs. Agaram Chenga Reddi and others). He further relied upon the judgment reported in (1996) 6 S.C.C. 223 in the case of ( Sawarni Vs. Inder Kaur and others) for a proposition that mutation of name in the revenue records will neither create nor extinguish the title and that only entitles the person to pay the land revenue and contended that eventhough in the revenue records, the S.No.95/1 was described as temple-poramboke, that will not confer any title on the appellant/plaintiff, having regard to the judgments rendered in the earlier two suits. Therefore, he submitted that both the Court have rightly dismissed the suit and there is no need to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. 12. Heard both sides. 13. The appellant/plaintiff filed the suit in respect of the property situate in S.No.95/1 of an extent of 14.25 acres. The case of the appellant/plaintiff rests on the entry in the revenue records and according to the appellant/plaintiff, the suit property has been classified as temple-poramboke, belonging to the appellant-temple and they have got title and possession of the same and without their consent, the respondents, who are representing the Seguntha Mudaliar Community, have no right to put up construction. Therefore, they must be injuncted. 14. Admittedly, in respect of S.No.95/1 of an extent of 17.03, acres the appellant-temple filed the suit in O.S.No.182 of 1983, for the relief of declaration that the entire property situate in S.No.95/1, having an extent of 17.03 acres belonged to the appellant-temple and the defendants in that suit, who are also villagers of the Alavaipatti Village should be restrained from interfering with the possession of the appellant-temple. In that suit, the State of Tamil Nadu was the first defendant and the Venandoor Panchayat Union was the second respondent and seven persons, representing the Allavaipatti Village were the other defendants. In that suit, the learned District Munsif held that S.No.95/1 was having an extent of 17.03 acres and later, it was subdivided into S.Nos.95/2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 and S.No.95/1 was having an extent of 14.25 acres and S.No.95/2 was having an extent of 0.46 acres and S.No.95/3, was having an extent of 0.69 acres, S.No.95/4, having an extent of 0.94 acres and the same was used as playground and S.No.95/5 having an extent of 1.59 acres. 15. 15. It was also admitted in the said judgment that the portion of temple-poramboke was used as Playground and in other portion, Water Tank and Midday Nutrition Meal Scheme Building were constructed and the Seguntha Mudaliar Community people are having pavadis for their weaving purpose and held that a mere mention of the property as temple-poramboke, will not confer any title to the appellant-temple and they were not in possession of the property. Therefore, they were not entitled to the relief of declaration and injunction and the suit was dismissed. In O.S.No.642 of 1987, injunction was prayed for by the appellant-temple, represented by its Executive Officer in respect of S.Nos.95/1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, having a total extent of 17.03 acres and that suit was also dismissed and in the first appeal filed by the appellant-temple, the temple was permitted to put up a construction viz., Kitchen in a small area measuring 30 x 12 x 8 and in respect of the remaining extent, the decree of the Trial Court was confirmed. 16. Therefore, it is seen from the above two judgments that in respect of the same property, earlier suits were filed by the appellant-temple and their right and possession were negatived by the Courts below and the Courts have also found that the appellant-temple is not having possession of the entire extent of property. Therefore, the appellant/plaintiffs are bound by the judgment rendered in O.S.No.182 of 1983 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Namakkal, and O.S.642 of 1987, on the file of the District Munsif Court Rasipuram and the judgments therein will operate as res judicata against the plaintiffs. Therefore, the substantial question of law No.1 is answered against the appellant/plaintiff. 17. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff strenuously argued that when the property has been classified as temple-poramboke in the revenue records, it belongs to the temple and no one has got any right or title over the same. Therefore, even assuming that some portion of the property are used as water tank, playground and Midday Nutrition Meal Scheme building, that will not clothe any right on the respondents to put up any construction in the suit property, without the permission of the appellant-temple. 18. As stated supra, when the appellant/plaintiff has no right over the suit property, they cannot prevent the respondents from putting up any construction. 18. As stated supra, when the appellant/plaintiff has no right over the suit property, they cannot prevent the respondents from putting up any construction. Further, as per the judgment of this Court reported in (1930) 32 Law Weekly 211 (referred to supra) that mere registry of land in a village as a particular kind of poramboke, that will not create any vested right on those person as such against the Government and such a registry implies no kind of dedication or trust or any recognition of a vested right on user and the classification of porambokes, in village registers is merely by way of description and it confers no title. 19. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also in the judgment reported in (1996) 6 S.C.C. 223 ( referred to supra) has held that mutation of name in the revenue records will neither create nor extinguish the title, but that only entitles the person to pay the land revenue. Therefore, merely because, in the revenue records said property has been described as temple-poramboke, that will not confer right or title to the appellant/plaintiff. Therefore, the second substantial question of law is also answered against the appellant/plaintiff. 20. The appellant/plaintiff filed a petition in M.P.No.2 of 2011, to receive additional evidence and according to me, the additional evidence now produced will not help the appellant/plaintiff or the Court to decide the controversy. Further, the additional evidence was produced to prove that the property has been classified as temple-poramboke in the revenue records and I hold that eventhough the property has been described as temple-poramboke in the revenue records, that will not confer any right or title to the appellant/plaintiff, when admittedly, the appellant/plaintiff is not in possession of the entire property. Therefore, the additional evidence will not help the Court to arrive at a conclusion and hence, the M.P.No.2 of 2011, is also dismissed. 21. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed and the judgment and decree of the Courts below are confirmed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition No.1 of 2011 is closed.