JUDGMENT R. MAHADEVAN, J. 1. This Second Appeal has been filed by the Defendant, who lost his case before the lower appellate court, but succeeded before the Trial Court, against judgment and decree, dated 21.01.2003, made in AS.No.94/2002, by the learned Additional District Judge, FTC II, Cuddalore, setting aside the judgment and decree, dated 29.06.2001, made in OS.No.27/1992, by the learned Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram. For the sake of convenience and for easy reference, the parties are hitherto described as they were arrayed before the Trial Court. 2. The case of the Plaintiff, as set out in the Plaint, is as follows:- a. Originally, the Trust was created with 40.00 acres of lands (comprised in items 1 to 16 of the plaint schedule), by way of a registered partition deed, among the ancestors of the Plaintiff, in the year 1886. In that line of ancestors, one Sivakolundu Pillai became the Trustee for the lands and he possessed them and had been performing the Trust. While so, the said Sivakolundu Pillai has executed a registered Will on 17.11.1907, in respect of the undivided joint family properties. Since his sons were also pious and religious minded, the said Sivakolundu Pillai has constructed Sri Kothandaramaswamy Temple at Pinnathur, the suit village. For the management of the Temple, he has appointed his four sons, viz. Rajagopal Pillai, Ethiraju Pillai, Ramanujam Pillai and Chidambaram Pillai and he has also prescribed the line of succession. He has intended that only male members should perform the charities. The said Sivakolundu Pillai has created the said Trust, by adding other items of the suit properties (about 60.00 acres), which he acquired. Thus, items 1 to 16 of the suit properties were exclusively dedicated for the Masi Makam kattalai, for Govindarajaswamy Temple at Chidambaram. The said Sivakolundu Pillai was performing the Poojas and Uthsavams for Sri Kothandramaswamy Temple at Pinnathur, from out of the other 60.00 acres of properties referred to above, till his life. After the death of Sivakolundu Pillai, his sons were performing the charity. Rajagopala Pillai's son Ramakrishna Pillai came to manage and perform the charity, as the senior most male member, since Ethiraju Pillai had no male issues and Chidambaram Pillai having gone out of the family, on account of his adoption. Ramakrishna Pillai became disqualified due to acts of misfeasance, malfeasance and acts of fraud and cheating and was removed. Rajagopala Pillai's son Ramakrishna Pillai came to manage and perform the charity, as the senior most male member, since Ethiraju Pillai had no male issues and Chidambaram Pillai having gone out of the family, on account of his adoption. Ramakrishna Pillai became disqualified due to acts of misfeasance, malfeasance and acts of fraud and cheating and was removed. b. Thereafter, Ramanujam Pillai's son, Seethapathy, the father of the Plaintiff came to perform the charity, being the senior most male member and has been performing the Trust, without any remarks. His Trusteeship was also recognised by the HR&CE Department and he has been in possession of the properties as a Trustee, till his death on 28.7.1987. In fact, the said Seethapathi Pillai has also got an exemption of about 23 acres and 21 cents for his personal enjoyment through the HR&CE Department. Thus, the father of the Plaintiff was the Hereditary Trustee and has been in possession and enjoyment of the Trust, by actual holding and performing the Trust obligations. While so, the said Seethapathi Pillai, on 15.4.1987, has executed a registered Will and thereby appointed the Plaintiff as the Hereditary Trustee and also bequeathed his personal properties to him, which he got under the permission from the HR&CE Department. Thus, the Plaintiff as the Hereditary Trustee has been in possession and management of the suit properties, as well as the Temple, Sri Kothandaramaswamy Temple and has been performing the Poojas and Masi Makam Kattalai of Sri Lord Govindarajaswamy Temple till this date. His position as the Hereditary Trustee is also recognised by the HR&CE Department and he has also been paying the contribution amount under the Act. He has also paid the kist for the suit properties and no other person, except the Plaintiff, has got any semblance of right whatsoever over the suit properties and the temple. There are very many documents to prove that the Plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the properties as Hereditary Trustee. While so, the Defendant, who is not the vamsadhar or heir or vargadhar of the family, claims to be the Trustee of the Temple and the suit properties. In fact, she is an interlopper and has nothing to do with the family. As per the original dedication of the Trust in the year 1886, when the ancestors dedicated the properties, they specifically excluded the female members from performing the Trust. In fact, she is an interlopper and has nothing to do with the family. As per the original dedication of the Trust in the year 1886, when the ancestors dedicated the properties, they specifically excluded the female members from performing the Trust. c. The Defendant, who is not the resident of the suit village, has filed a suit on the file of this court for declaration that she is the vamsadhar of the family of Sivakolundu Pillai and consequent to that, she is entitled to be the Trustee and for recovery of possession, as against the father of the Plaintiff Seethapathy Pillai in OS.No.50/85. The said suit was conducted and during the pendency of the suit, the father of the Plaintiff died on 28.7.1987. But the Defendant without reporting the death, has obtained a exparte decree on 4.8.87. The Plaintiff came to know of the above suit only when the Defendant has published a notice in Daily Thanthi on 16.8.87, stating that she has assumed charge for the Trust properties pursuant to the exparte judgment, as above stated. Hence, the Plaintiff issued a reply notice to the advocate of the Defendant, who had published the notice on 16.8.87. Thereupon, the Plaintiff has also published a notice on 27.8.87, thereby denying the notice published by the Defendant. Thereafter, on 30.8.87 the Plaintiff applied to the Deputy Commissioner, HR&CE Department, stating that he has assumed charge after the death of his father. But, the Defendant has given a petition on 14.9.87 stating that she is the Trustee of the Trust. The Deputy Commissioner, in his order dated 24.5.1988 in proceedings ROC.No.16599/87/B1, has ordered that only the Civil Court has the power to declare the Trusteeship. While so, the Defendant has not moved the Civil Court and the Plaintiff continued as the Trustee. He has also been performing the Trust and has also paid the contribution amount to the HR&CE Department. The Board has also received and recognised the Plaintiff as the Hereditary Trustee by its act. While so, the very same Officer, for the reasons best known to him, has passed an order in an application by the Defendant without notice to the Plaintiff that the Defendant is the Hereditary Trustee, by his order dated 25.4.89, in proceedings ROC.No.5002/89 dated 25.4.89. While so, the very same Officer, for the reasons best known to him, has passed an order in an application by the Defendant without notice to the Plaintiff that the Defendant is the Hereditary Trustee, by his order dated 25.4.89, in proceedings ROC.No.5002/89 dated 25.4.89. The Plaintiff has preferred an appeal before the Commissioner and the Commissioner has also pleased to set aside the above order in AP.No.29/89 dated 19.7.89 and thereby categorically stated that the Deputy Commissioner has not acted in accordance with law. As against that, the Defendant has preferred a writ and the same is pending. d. There is absolutely no document to prove that the Defendant took charge of the Trust properties and is functioning as Trustee. The Plaintiff alone is in management of the Trust and possession of the properties. Now, the Defendant is stating that she is the Trustee and as such, with the aid of the unlawful elements attempts to disturb the possession and management of the Plaintiff, over the Trust and the properties. The Defendant has illegally published another notice on 22.5.89 that she is the Trustee for the Trust properties. The HR&CE Department has recognised the Plaintiff as the Trustee and has also issued several letters to him. In fact, the Plaintiff has performed the Masi Makam Kattalai. In these circumstances, the denial of the Defendant is unlawful and is having no merits. Hence, it is just and necessary that an order of this court is required to prevent the abuse of the miscreant over the suit properties. Hence, the suit has been filed for declaration that the Plaintiff is the hereditary trustee and entitled to be in management of the suit properties and for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from interfering with the Plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. 3. In the Written Statement filed by the Defendant, it is averred as follows:- a. One Sivakozhundu Pillai constructed a Temple for Sri Kothanda Ramasamy in 1882. He executed a registered Will for the management of the temple on 17.11.1907. He gave to his sons separate schedules of properties totalling 60 acres to be cultivated by them and to do the obligations of the Trustees. The above said Sivakozhundu Pillai set apart 40 acres of land of ancestral property for the purpose of doing Masimaka kattalai to Sri Thillai Govindaraja Perumal. He gave to his sons separate schedules of properties totalling 60 acres to be cultivated by them and to do the obligations of the Trustees. The above said Sivakozhundu Pillai set apart 40 acres of land of ancestral property for the purpose of doing Masimaka kattalai to Sri Thillai Govindaraja Perumal. After the death of Sivakozhundu Pillai, Ramanujam Pillai was in management of the Trust. After Ramanujam Pillai, the Defendant's maternal uncle Seethapathi Pillai became the Hereditary Trustee. He had no issues. As he fell ill during 1967 and as he had no issues, he appointed one Balasubramania Kandha Pillai, as the Manager of the Trust. Later he resumed the management in the year 1974 and he was performing both the Trusts, namely, Pinnathur Kothanda Ramasamy Temple Trust, as well as Masimaka Kattalai of Sri Thillai Govindaraja Perumal. Seethapathi Pillai's wife Pattammal predeceased him. But however, she brought from her parent's side one person by name Tavaguru for her help and assistance. Thavaguru, in fact, became a tenant of Seethapathi Pillai and cultivated about 4? cawnie of lands. Since Thavaguru has no relations and had no properties, he began to stay in the suit village. He became well acquainted with the family matters. But, Seethapathi Pillai was not doing well as a Trustee. He got patta for the said lands. This called for some interference by the Defendant. The Defendant gave an application to the Tahsildar to obtain a legal heir certificate in 1985. The Tahsildar came to the village, made detailed enquiries and granted a certificate on 14.5.1985 in favour of the Defendant. Late Seethapathi Pillai had given a declaration that he had no heirs or issues at the time of enquiry. The Defendant gave complaint to HR&CE Department for annulling the sale wrongfully made by Seethapathi Pillai. The Department was making enquiries. But finally the Defendant filed a suit in OS.No.50/1985 on the file of the Sub Court, Chidambaram, for declaration of her rights to the Trusteeship and also for discharging Seethapathi Pillai from his office. The trial of the case went on for about two to three months. For all hearings it was Thavaguru who was coming to court rather than Seetapathi Pillai. After the trial was over Seethapathi Pillai died. The judgment was delivered subsequent to the death of Seethapathi Pillai. The trial of the case went on for about two to three months. For all hearings it was Thavaguru who was coming to court rather than Seetapathi Pillai. After the trial was over Seethapathi Pillai died. The judgment was delivered subsequent to the death of Seethapathi Pillai. After the trial was over, if a party had died before judgment was delivered, the judgment delivered in that case is final and effective. In fact, Thavaguru did not inform the court about the death of Seethapathi Pillai. After the judgment was rendered in OS.No.50/85, no action was taken by the present Plaintiff. b. Now the Plaintiff is producing a will alleged to have been executed by Seethapathi Pillai on 15.4.1987. This will is a rank forgery. Seethapathy Pillai had no necessity to execute a Will. Even if he had executed a Will, that will not be valid, because the Trust is to be governed by the terms and conditions made by the original founder. Seethapathi Pillai's Will even if it was true, is invalid and unenforceable. The Plaintiff made an attempt before the Commissioner, HR&CE Department to get himself added as a legal representative of the deceased Seethapathi Pillai. However, that attempt was defeated by the Defendant, by taking appropriate writ proceedings. The Defendant, after the death of Seethapathi Pillai, automatically became entitled to the Trusteeship. The Defendant is not only entitled to be the Trustee of the suit Trust under the decree, but also as the only surviving legal heir of Late Ramanujam Pillai. After taking charge of the Trust, the Defendant gave a notice to the public on 22.5.1985. The HR&CE Department, in several communications, had recognised the present Defendant as a Hereditary Trustee of the suit Temple and the Trust. There are several documents to prove that the Defendant had taken over charge as Trustee of the suit Trust and began to function as a Trustee. Because the Defendant's husband is employed at Madras, the Defendant could not come to the suit village quite often. So on 6.11.1991, she appointed one Pushparajan son of Ramanujam as her Power Agent to perform all the ministerial acts, which are necessary for the management of the temple as well as Trust. All these things were taking place with the full knowledge of the Plaintiff. Suppressing all these facts, the Plaintiff has come forward with a false and vexatious suit. All these things were taking place with the full knowledge of the Plaintiff. Suppressing all these facts, the Plaintiff has come forward with a false and vexatious suit. c. Seethapathy Pillai wrongly obtained exemption to sell 23 acres and 21 cents of land from the Trust. This kind of exemption is unknown to law. Once the property had been dedicated, it could not be resumed by filing an application trough the HR&CE Department. Seethapathi Pillai has no power to appoint a successor. The Plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties as well as the temple and he is not performing the poojas and masimakam kattalai and such an allegation is falsely made in the plaint. The lands are mostly under the tenancy cultivation. Tenants are taking advantage of the fight to the office of Trusteeship and they are not making any payment. The Defendant is the Vamsadar and heir of the family which founded the Trust. The HR&CE Department never recognised the Plaintiff as the Hereditary Trustee. The proceedings mentioned in paragraph 10 are not correct. The Plaintiff attempted to put a new lock to the Kothandaramasamy Temple. That was stopped by the power agent and the temple was always in the possession of the Defendant through her power agent. The Plaintiff, thereafter, gave a complaint as if the Defendant had broken the lock of the temple. Some influential persons helped the Plaintiff in police complaint. In the plaint, the rights of the Defendant is questioned. It is not clear as to how the Plaintiff could claim to be a Hereditary Trustee when he has no blood relationship with the late Seethapathi Pillai. It is only a black mailing action on the part of the Plaintiff. In such circumstances, the suit filed by the Plaintiff is false, frivolous and vexatious and liable to be dismissed. 4. The Trial Court, after framing necessary issues, on the above pleadings, on the side of the Plaintiff, examined PW.1 to PW.4 and marked Ex.A1 to A30 and on the side of the Defendant, examined DW.1 and marked Ex.B1 to B60. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court dismissed the suit and the appeal filed as against the same was allowed by the lower appellate court. Hence, this Second Appeal has been filed. 5. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court dismissed the suit and the appeal filed as against the same was allowed by the lower appellate court. Hence, this Second Appeal has been filed. 5. This Court, while admitting this Second Appeal, had formulated the following Substantial Questions of Law:-- 1. Whether the entries made in the school leaving certificate 2. The description made in the voters list be construed as conclusive proof of parentage of the Plaintiff in the absence of any other oral or documentary evidence? 3. Whether the lower appellate court erred in law and misdirected itself in holding that a female member of a family is not eligible to be appointed as hereditary trustee of a Trust to administer a temple and to perform kattalies? 6. Heard both sides. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the courts below erred in holding that the respondent is the son of Seethapathy Pillai without any documentary evidence like birth certificate or any public documents or sale deeds. 8. The learned counsel has vehemently contended that the courts below erred in deciding the father of the respondent based on the initial found in the transfer certificate issued by the Head Master of the School and therefore, the judgment and decree of the courts below are not sustainable in law. 9. Further, the learned counsel has also seriously argued that when the respondent himself had mentioned his father's name as Dhamodharan in an affidavit filed in the earlier case, the Courts below ought not to have held that the respondent is the son of Seethapathy Pillai and entitled to succeed him as trustee after his demise. 10. The learned counsel has also added that though the said Seethapathy had himself mentioned that the respondent was a cultivating tenant under him, he could not be the son of said Seethapathy and therefore, the findings of the courts below are not sustainable. 11. The learned counsel has submitted that the defendant's advocate in O.S.No.50 of 1985 on the file of the Sub Court, Chidambaram, had wantonly suppressed and failed to inform the death of the Seethapathy Pillai and allowed the trial court to pass the decree and as such the subsequent present suit filed by the respondent is hit by the principles of Resjudicata. 12. 12. Further, the learned counsel has argued that either in the Will or in the trust deed nothing has been stated that the elder male member alone should be appointed as the hereditary trustee and therefore, the findings rendered by the courts below misconstruing the Will and the trust deed are liable to be set aside. 13. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the following decisions:- a. In Thambi alias Giri and another vs. V.M. Duraisamy and others, 2009 (1) CTC 97 , the learned Single Judge of this Court has held as under:- 17. It is also apparent that the birth extract is not a cooked up document and it was duly signed by the authority concerned and there is no necessity for formally entertaining any oral evidence to prove the same. The birth extracts issued by the appropriate authority could be taken as evidence. The perusal of the birth extract would show that a male was born to the said Sundaram Gounder and Rajammal the mother of P2 on 21.7.1970. It is also well known practice in Tamil Nadu that normally at the time of registering the birth of a child the name is not given and subsequently only steps are taken to get the name incorporated in the birth register. However, in this case, the name had not been got registered subsequently, but the circumstances would clearly exemplify that the said couple gave birth only to P2 and none else, during the relevant date i.e. on 21.7.1970. Accordingly, the said birth extract is marked as Ex.B20 in continuation of the aforesaid Ex.B1 to B19 already marked during trial. The significance of Ex.B20 would be discussed infra at the appropriate stage. 18. In Thambi @ Giri vs. V.M. Duraisamy, 2009 (1) CTC 97 , while deciding about the evidentiary value of the birth certificate issued by the competent authority vis-a-vis School Certificate for the proof of date of birth in the light of Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, of course in a suit for partition, G. RAJASURIA, J., while observing that the birth certificate issued by the public authority will have more evidentiary value than the school certificate, especially when the same has not been proved by the author of such certificate in the manner known to law, has held as under: "28. I am of the considered opinion that in the facts of this case, the birth extract Ex.B20 is more reliable than the School Certificate. It is also to be highlighted that as per Indian Evidence Act, Ex.A10, the Certificate issued by the Headmaster was not proved by examining the Headmaster concerned or the School Authorities. At this juncture, my mind is redolent with the following decision of the Honourable Supreme Court. Lala Satyanarain Prasad vs. Gadadhar Ram, 1975 (2) SCC 564 , certain excerpts from it would run thus: "7. The High Court rightly did not place any reliance on the certificate. The truth of the contents of the certificate could not be proved by a clerk who only proved the handwriting on the certificate. The Head Master, who issued the certificate, was not examined. The original admission register on the basis of which the certificate was given was not proved. The clerk, who proved the handwritings of the certificate, could not say who made the original entry in the admission register." 29. It is therefore clear from the above cited precedent that Ex.A10 cannot be taken as one proved as per law. However as per Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, Ex.B20 could be taken as the Public Document. Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act is extracted hereunder for ready reference:- Section 74. Public documents.- The following documents are public documents: (1) documents forming the acts or records of the acts.- (i) of the sovereign authority, (ii) of official bodies and tribunals, and (iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, of any part of India or of the Commonwealth, or of a foreign country; (2) public records kept in any State of private documents." b. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Satpal Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2010 (6) Supreme 143 has held as under:- “27. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised that the entry made in the official record by an official or person authorised in performance of an official duty is admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act but the party may still ask the Court/Authority to examine its probative value. The authenticity of the entry would depend as on whose instruction/information such entry stood recorded and what was his source of information. Thus, entry in school register/certificate requires to be proved in accordance with law. The authenticity of the entry would depend as on whose instruction/information such entry stood recorded and what was his source of information. Thus, entry in school register/certificate requires to be proved in accordance with law. Standard of proof for the same remains as in any other civil and criminal case. 28. In case, the issue is examined in the light of the aforesaid settled legal proposition, there is nothing on record to corroborate the date of birth of the prosecutrix recorded in the School Register. It is not possible to ascertain as to who was the person who had given her date of birth as 13.02.1975 at the time of initial admission in the primary school. More so, it cannot be ascertained as who was the person who had recorded her date of birth in the Primary School Register. More so, the entry in respect of the date of birth of the prosecutrix in the Primary School Register has not been produced and proved before the Trial Court. Thus, in view of the above, it cannot be held with certainty that the prosecutrix was a major.” c. The learned Single Judge of this Court in Arunagiri vs. Dr. Jayalakshmi and another, (2010) 2 MLJ 378 , has held as follows:- "10. It is seen from the records on 04.03.2008, defendant was examined in chief. Subsequently, it was adjourned to 11.03.2008, 26.03.2008, 28.03.2008 and 08.04.2008 for cross examination of the defendant. In spite of several opportunities, defendant did not appear for cross examination. Keeping in view his absence and unwillingness to participate in the trial, trial Court raised presumption that the defendant had purposely avoided to face trial and closed the evidence invoking Order 17 Rule 3 C.P.C. Order 17 Rule 3 C.P.C. applies only when the party, who was granted adjournment, failed to produce evidence or to do certain specified acts. Trial Court has adjourned the case for appearance of defendant (D.W.1) for his cross examination and in spite of repeated adjournments, he did not appear. In view of his non participation, trial Court was right in invoking Order 17 Rule 3 of C.P.C. and proceeding to decide the suit. The words 'notwithstanding such default' clearly implied that the Court can proceed with the disposal of the suit on merits in spite of the default. In view of his non participation, trial Court was right in invoking Order 17 Rule 3 of C.P.C. and proceeding to decide the suit. The words 'notwithstanding such default' clearly implied that the Court can proceed with the disposal of the suit on merits in spite of the default. There must be some materials for decision on merits, even though the materials may not be technically interpreted as evidence. As pointed out earlier, defendant has given his evidence in chief examination and he was absent when the case was adjourned for his cross examination. Evidence on the plaintiffs' side was already over and the defendant was examined in chief. With the available evidence and materials on record, notwithstanding default of the defendant, trial Court was justified in proceeding with the suit and pronouncing judgment. Since it was a decision on merits, there was no occasion for the appellate Court to remand the matter to the trial Court and substantial question No.(2) is answered against the appellant."14. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the said Seethaparthy Pillai on 15.4.1987 has executed a registered Will and thereby appointed the plaintiff as the Hereditary Trustee and also bequeathed his personal properties to him, which he got under the permission from H.R. & C.E. Department, and that the respondent herein as the Hereditary Trustee has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and performing poojas in Sri Kotharamaswamy Temple and Masi Magam Kattalai of Sri Lord Govindarajaswamy Temple till this date and his position has been recognised by the H.R. & C.E. Department and therefore, the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant, which are false and baselss, cannot be accepted. 15. Further, the learned Senior Counsel has argued that based on the documents produced before the trial Court, like School transfer certificate and the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and Exs.A.25 School Transfer Certificate, Exs.A.34 and 35 Wedding invitations, and Exs.43 and 44 Voters' List to prove that the respondent is the son of Seethapathy Pillai and considering all these documents, the Court below has come to the conclusion that the respondent is the son of the said Seethapathy Pillai and therefore, nothing warrants the interference of this Court with the findings of the courts below. 16. 16. In support of her contention, the learned Senior Counsel has relied on the decision in Vasu Thevar and others vs. Rukmani Ammal and another, 2000 (1) L.W. 723 . 17. I have considered the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel on either side and perused the documents. 18. The entire case revolves around the only question, whether the respondent is the son of Seethaparthy Pillai or not. 19. It is the case of the respondent that he was appointed as the hereditary trustee by his father Seethapathy Pillai by a registered Will, dated on 15.4.1987 and thereby he bequeathed his personal properties to him, which he got under the permission from H.R. & C.E. Department, and that the respondent herein as the Hereditary Trustee has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties as well as performing the poojas in Sri Kotharamaswamy Temple and Masi Magam Kattalai of Sri Lord Govindarajaswamy Temple till this date and the same has been recognised by the H.R. & C.E. Department. 20. A perusal of Ex.A2 reveals as under:- “Tamil” 21. Further, it reads as under:- 22. The above averments contained in the said Will make it clear that the respondent Thavaguru is the son of the Seethapathy Pillai and he bequeathed all the suit properties from his father. Further, it makes it abundantly clear that even after the life time of the respondent his male heirs alone can be the hereditary trustee. 23. Further, it is also necessary for this Court to look into more evidences to prove that the respondent is the son of Seethapathy Pillai, as already stated, as the entire case revolves around the above said question. 24. In Ex.A.25 Transfer Certificate, the name of the pupil is shown as S. Davaguru and the name of his father is shown as R.Seethapathy Pillai. 25. A perusal of Exs.A.34 and 35 Wedding invitations would divulge that the respondent is the son of Seethapathy Pillai. In Ex.A.43 Voter Card, the name of the voter is shown as Dhavaguru and his father name is shown as Seethapathy. 26. As far as the oral evidences are concerned, P.Ws.1 to 3 have deposed that the respondent Dhavaguru is the son of Seethapathy Pillai. 27. P.W.2 in his evidence has stated as under:- “Tamil” 28. P.W.3 had deposed as follows:- “Tamil” 29. 26. As far as the oral evidences are concerned, P.Ws.1 to 3 have deposed that the respondent Dhavaguru is the son of Seethapathy Pillai. 27. P.W.2 in his evidence has stated as under:- “Tamil” 28. P.W.3 had deposed as follows:- “Tamil” 29. From the above oral and documentary evidences adduced and produced before the courts below, they have come to the correct conclusion that the respondent is the son of Seethpathy Pillai, with which finding, this Court is not inclined to interfere as the same is based on the legal evidence. 30. Even in the above said decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is held that in the absence of the birth certificate, school certificate can be relied upon. Here, it is not the case. In the instant case on hand, there are more number of oral and documentary evidences, as extracted above, to prove the parentage of the respondent and therefore, there is no necessity for the production of brith certificate, when the father Seethapathy Pillai himself had executed the Will and such execution of the Will was proved by examining P.W.4, who had written the Will, and other oral and documentary evidences produced on behalf of the respondent have proved that the respondent is the son of Seethapathy Pillai, and therefore, the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant would not lend any support to the case of the appellant. 31. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant heavily relied upon the affidavit filed by the respondent on behalf of the defendant in O.S.No.50 of 1985, which was filed by the appellant herein, on the file of the Sub Court, Chidambaram. 32. In the said affidavit, in the first line, it was written as Dhavaguru, s/o.Damodaram Pillai, whereas in the following lines, it is stated that the respondent is the son of the defendant therein, i.e., Seethapathy Pillai and he is doing all proceedings on behalf of his father. 33. Relying on the first line, which states that the respondent is the son of Damodaram Pillai, the appellant wanted to reverse the case saying that the respondent is not the son of Seethapathy Pillai. Even for that, P.W.1 Dhavaguru, the respondent herein has given explanation as to how it was occurred. It was because of the mistake of the advocate clerk, who had written and filed the affidavit. Even for that, P.W.1 Dhavaguru, the respondent herein has given explanation as to how it was occurred. It was because of the mistake of the advocate clerk, who had written and filed the affidavit. On the other hand, the contents of the affidavit speaks the truth and therefore, this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. In the light of the above, the first substantial question of law is answered as against the appellant. 34. Further, the next question is whether the female members are eligible for being appointed as hereditary trustee. 35. From the above extraction from the Will, which clearly and categorically states that only the male members alone are eligible for being appointed as hereditary trustee. At the risk of repetition, the excerpts of the Will is again reproduced hereunder:- “Tamil” 36. The above excerpts of the Will would clearly say that no female member can be appointed as the hereditary trustee and when the Will utters as against the appellant, she cannot make any claim for the appointment of hereditary trustee. Further, it is not the case of the appellant that the Will is a forged or cooked one and unless and untill she puts such allegation and prove the same, she cannot have any case on merits and therefore, the second substantial question of law is also answered as against the appellant. 37. Though the trial Court based on the legal evidence has come to the conclusion that the respondent is the son of Seethapathy Pillai and granted the declaratory relief, it denied to grant injunction as against the appellant in view of the ex parte decree in O.S.No.50 of 1985, which was passed and obtained by the appellant herein, only after the death of the said Seethapathy Pillai. 38. On the contrary, the lower appellate court has categorically stated that the so-called ex parte decree obtained by the appellant is invalid because, it was obtained only after the death of the defendant therein and therefore, based on such ex parte decree, the appellant herein cannot make any claim and therefore, on that ground it set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court appointing the appellant as the hereditary trustee and consequently and rightly granted the relief of injunction. 39. 39. When a person is entitled for the relief of declaration, he is also entitled for the relief of injunction and that cannot be denied. 40. In view of the above, the second substantial questions of law is also answered as against the appellant. 41. In fine, this Second Appeal fails and the same stands dismissed. The Judgment and decree of the lower appellate court is confirmed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.