JUDGMENT : 1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the Judgment and Decree dated 28.11.2003 passed in A.S. No. 188 of 2002 on the file of the District Court, Perambalur, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 29.06.2001 passed in O.S. No. 535 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Perambalur. 2. Parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court. 3. Suit for Permanent Injunction. 4. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is that the suit properties belong to the plaintiffs by way of a gift deed dated 22.06.1931 and the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and except the plaintiffs, no one has got any right, interest or possession in respect of the suit properties and at the time of the abovesaid gift deed, the present hereditary trustee Nallathambi's father viz. Ayyamuthu Udayar and one Maniyara Udayar were appointed as the guardians for the plaintiffs to manage the plaintiffs' properties and also to do the pooja works for the plaintiffs and also to do the same in future by their heirs after their life time in a hereditary manner. Maniyara Udayar died without any male issue and Ayyamuthu Udayar's son Nallathambi succeeded his father's right and Managing the suit properties as the hereditary trustee of the plaintiffs as abovestated and the defendants, who are utter strangers to the suit properties at the instigation of the trustee's enemies, attempted to interfere with the plaintiffs' possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and hence, according to the plaintiffs, they had been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate reliefs. 5. The case of the defendants, in brief, is that the suit laid by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The frame of the suit is not proper and liable to be rejected. It is false to state that Nallathambi has been managing the suit properties as the hereditary trustee of the plaintiffs. It is further false to state that the defendants are strangers to the suit properties. Patchai Udayar and Maniyara Udayar are the hereditary poosaries of the suit temples. Patchai Udayar had three sons viz. It is false to state that Nallathambi has been managing the suit properties as the hereditary trustee of the plaintiffs. It is further false to state that the defendants are strangers to the suit properties. Patchai Udayar and Maniyara Udayar are the hereditary poosaries of the suit temples. Patchai Udayar had three sons viz. Periyathambi Udayar, Ayyamuthu Udayar and Ponnusamy, accordingly, the abovesaid three sons of Patchai Udayar and Maniyara Udayar settled the suit properties in favour of the plaintiffs by way of a deed dated 22.06.1931 and Periyathambi Udayar had only female issues and Ayyamuthu Udayar had two sons viz., Nallathambi and Durairaj and the first defendant Periyasamy is the only son of Ponnusamy Udayar. Accordingly, the sons of Ayyamuthu Udayar and Ponnusamy Udayar orally partitioned the suit properties and accordingly, had been hereditarily conducting the poojas of the plaintiffs' temple and the properties had also been conveniently divided as northern properties being allotted to Ponnusamy and southern properties had been allotted to Ayyamuthu Udayar and accordingly, the divided properties had been enjoyed by their respective sharers and in this connection, the compromise decree had also been passed in O.S. No. 340 of 1947 recognizing the entitlement of the defendants as well as Ayyamuthu Udayar to perform the poojas of the plaintiffs' temple and also the lands divided as abovestated and therefore, the plaintiff's father cannot lay any exclusive right over the suit properties and contrary to the decree passed in the abovesaid suit, the plaintiff cannot lay any exclusive right, interest and possession to the suit properties and the plaintiff is also estopped from claiming such a right and hence, the suit laid by the plaintiffs, without any cause of action, is liable to be dismissed. 6. In support of the plaintiffs' case, PWs 1 & 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A11 were marked. On the side of the defendants' DWs 1 & 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B26 were marked. 7. On the basis of the materials placed on record and the submissions made, the trial Court was pleased to dismiss the plaintiffs' suit. In the first appellate Court, on behalf of the plaintiffs, additional document has come to be marked as Ex.A12 and additional documents have also come to be marked by the defendants as Exs.B27 to B36. 7. On the basis of the materials placed on record and the submissions made, the trial Court was pleased to dismiss the plaintiffs' suit. In the first appellate Court, on behalf of the plaintiffs, additional document has come to be marked as Ex.A12 and additional documents have also come to be marked by the defendants as Exs.B27 to B36. The first appellate Court, on an appreciation of the materials placed on record, found concurrence with the determination of the trial Court, on the issues involved in the matter and accordingly, dismissed the first appeal preferred by the plaintiffs. Challenging the same, the present second appeal has been laid. 8. At the time of admission of the second appeal, the following substantial questions of law were formulated for consideration: (i) Whether a mere Poojariship in any Religious Institution automatically enlarges into Trusteeship? (ii) Is the civil court right in answering an issue, (how so ever incidental in nature) which is not within its jurisdiction and is vested with competent statutory authority and a proceeding is also pending before such authority? (iii) Whether a mistaken pleading in an earlier proceeding can be purged as an estoppel vis-a-vis from claiming an already existing accrued legal right? 9. The suit has been laid simplicitor for the relief of permanent injunction on the footing that the suit properties are in the possession and enjoyment of the hereditary trustee Nallathambi on behalf of the plaintiff idols. The suit properties are claimed to be owned by the plaintiff idols by way of the gift deed dated 22.06.1931 and as regards the above position, there is no dispute as such. The only dispute between the parties seems to be as to whether Nallathambi claiming to be the hereditary trustee would be entitled to claim exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit properties on behalf of the plaintiff idols. 10. In this connection, it is noted that the proceedings are pending before the HR & CE department as to the claim of Nallathambi as the hereditary trustee of the plaintiff idols and the same is pending adjudication. 11. Suffice to state that insofar as this suit is concerned, we have to determine whether Nallathambi is having the exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit properties on the footing that he is the hereditary trustee of the plaintiff idols. 11. Suffice to state that insofar as this suit is concerned, we have to determine whether Nallathambi is having the exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit properties on the footing that he is the hereditary trustee of the plaintiff idols. Though it is pleaded and oral evidence adduced that various litigations had been laid between the parties in respect of the suit properties, materials pertaining to the same have not been exhibited in the present suit. However, as seen from the suit laid in O.S. No. 213 of 1983 the plaint copy having been marked as Ex.B26, it is found that by way of the said plaint, it has been admitted by the plaintiff himself that both the plaintiff's family as well as the defendants' family were the Poosaries of the plaintiff idols and accordingly, enjoying the properties belonging to the idols. Accordingly, it is found that Nallathambi, who claims to be the hereditary trustee, cannot lay any exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit properties of the plaintiff idols. In this connection, it is found that both the plaintiff and the defendants have placed documents to show that they are in respective possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and no valid materials have been placed by Nallathambi to evidence that he is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit properties as the hereditary trustee of the plaintiff idols. Further, as determined by the Courts below, the defendants have placed materials to show that they are also the residents of the suit village and accordingly, also filed documents to show that they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit properties on behalf of the plaintiff idols. When the materials placed on record would go to show that both the plaintiff Nallathambi as well as the defendants had been performing poojas of the plaintiff idols and accordingly, in the possession and enjoyment of the suit properties as such and further, when the claim of the hereditary trusteeship in respect of the plaintiff idols is pending adjudication before the department concerned and when the documents placed by the plaintiff as such do not establish that Nallathambi is in the exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit properties as putforth by him, the Courts below are found to be justified in negativing the relief sought for by the plaintiff. 12. 12. Considering the pending litigation before the department as regards the claim of hereditary trusteeship in respect of the plaintiff idols, I deem it unnecessary to go deep into the rival contentions of the parties concerned, particularly, Nallathambi having failed to establish that he is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit properties on behalf of the plaintiff's temple as the hereditary trustee of the same and on the other hand, as rightly determined by the Courts below, the defendants are also found to be in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit properties as such and when the right of the defendants had been recognised by the plaintiff himself in the earlier litigation, as could be seen from Ex.B26 and the present suit having been laid simplicitor for the relief of permanent injunction and in the light of the above position, the plaintiff having failed to establish his claim of exclusive possession as such, the above factor being purely a question of fact and had been rightly determined by the Courts below on the proper appreciation of the materials placed on record, which do not warrant any interference at this juncture, it is seen that the determination of the Courts below that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain the relief of permanent injunction does not call for any disturbance by this Court at the second appeal stage and accordingly, the substantial questions of law formulated in the second appeal are answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants. 13. In conclusion, the second appeal fails and accordingly, is dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.