JUDGMENT C.V. Karthikeyan, J. The plaintiff in O.S.No.233 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Pattukkottai, is the appellant herein. The plaintiff, Sri Ayannar Temple, Kazhanikottai Village, Peravoorani Taluk, Pattukkottai, represented by hereditary trustee Veeraiyan, had instituted the suit against 9 defendants seeking the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 to 4 and 6 to 9 defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and in the alternative, if it is determined that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit properties, then grant recovery of possession of the suit properties and for costs of the suit. 2. The suit property is nanja land measuring 0.57.0 acres in S.No.80/2, 0.05.0 acres in S.No.77/6, 0.03.5 acres in S.No.79/3 and 0.09.0 acres in S.No.79/5. This suit had come up for consideration before the District Munsif Court, Pattukkottai and by Judgment and decree dated 14.06.2004, the relief of declaration of title was granted to the remaining extent of the first item of suit property excluding the portion purchased by the first defendant and for the 2nd to 4th items of suit property, however, the relief of permanent injunction and the relief of recovery of possession was not granted. It was held that Veeraiyan who represented the temple as hereditary trustee could not be granted those reliefs, since he had not established that he was the hereditary trustee of the plaintiff temple. The plaintiff then filed an appeal in A.S.No.7 of 2006 which came up for consideration before the Subordinate Court, Pattukkottai. By Judgment and decree dated 24.11.2006, the learned Subordinate Judge, dismissed the appeal and upheld the Judgment of the Trial Court. Challenging that Judgment, the plaintiff had filed the present second appeal. 3. At the time of admission, notice alone was ordered to the respondents. The respondents entered appearance and thereafter, the following substantial question of law had been framed for consideration: "Whether the temple which is represented by hereditary trustee has right to seeking recovery of possession through the hereditary trustee?" O.S.No.233 of 2000 (District Munsif Court Pattukkottai): 4. In the plaint, it had been stated the suit property situated in Kazhanikottai Village, Peravoorani Taluk, Pattukkottai, Thanjavur Distrist, measuring 0.57.0 acres in S.No.80/2, 0.05.0 acres in S.No.77/6, 0.03.5 acres in S.No.79/3 and 0.09.0 acres in S.No.79/5 belonged to the plaintiff temple, Sri Ayannar Temple, Kazhanikottai. In the plaint, it had been stated the suit property situated in Kazhanikottai Village, Peravoorani Taluk, Pattukkottai, Thanjavur Distrist, measuring 0.57.0 acres in S.No.80/2, 0.05.0 acres in S.No.77/6, 0.03.5 acres in S.No.79/3 and 0.09.0 acres in S.No.79/5 belonged to the plaintiff temple, Sri Ayannar Temple, Kazhanikottai. It was stated that V.Subban Ambalam, was the hereditary trustee. He died 10 years prior to the filing of the suit. After his death, his son Veerayian became the hereditary trustee. It had been stated that during the survey and settlement, patta was granted to the temple in the year 1959 with respect to the suit properties. It had been stated that the 1st to 4th defendants have no right or title over the suit properties. They were all close relatives. It was stated that during the U.D.R. Survey enquiry, joint patta was granted to the temple along with the fifth defendant. No relief was sought n the suit against the fifth defendant. Since the first defendant died, defendants 6 to 9 were impleaded as parties. Claiming that the defendants were threatening to encroach into the suit properties, the suit had been filed seeking declaration of title and injunction and in case of encroachment, recovery of possession. 5. The second defendant filed his written statement. The averments made in the plaint were denied. It was specifically stated that Veerayian who represented the plaintiff temple was not the hereditary trustee. It was stated that Subban Ambalam was one of four chiefs. He was not the hereditary trustee. It was stated that patta was wrongfully granted in the name of the plaintiff. It was stated that item No.1 had been purchased by the first defendant Valliammai by sale deed of the year 1961. With respect to the second and third items of property, it was stated that the first defendant was in possession and thereafter the second defendant continued to be in possession of the said items of property. With respect to the fourth item of suit property it was stated that the second defendant was in possession as lessee. It was stated that the suit has to be dismissed, particularly since Veerayian was not the hereditary trustee of the plaintiff temple. 6. The plaintiff filed a reply statement. They stated that the sale deed in the name of the first defendant dated 02.05.1961 is not a valid sale deed. It was stated that the suit has to be dismissed, particularly since Veerayian was not the hereditary trustee of the plaintiff temple. 6. The plaintiff filed a reply statement. They stated that the sale deed in the name of the first defendant dated 02.05.1961 is not a valid sale deed. It was stated that the vendor had no right to convey title. It was stated that Veeraiyan was the trustee of the temple. It was stated that the suit should be decreed. 7. The learned District Munsif, Pattukkottai, framed the following issues for trial: "(i). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration of title? (ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the alternate relief of recovery of possession? (iii) Whether the plaintiff was the title holder of the suit properties? (iv) To what other reliefs are the plaintiff entitled to?" 8. During trial, on the side of the plaintiff, Veeraiyan was examined as PW-1 and Thangavelu was examined as PW-2. On the side of the defendants, second defendant Pazhanivel was examined as DW-1 and Vaithi Ambalam was examined as DW-2. The plaintiff marked Exs.A1 to A10, Ex.A1 was the settlement register of Kazhanikottai Village. Ex.A2, dated 19.08.1995 was the kist receipt in the name of Veerayian. Ex.A3, dated 01.11.2000 was the kist receipt for patta no.1521. Ex.A4 was the kist receipt in the name of the Subbanambalam, dated 07.10.1965. Ex.A5 was the kist receipt in the name of the plaintiff temple, dated 04.02.2001. Ex.A6 was the Chitta and Ex.A7 was the Adangal. On the side of the defendant, Exs.B1 to B8 were marked. Ex.B2 was the sale deed in the name of Valliammai, first defendant, dated 02.05.1961. Ex.B3 was the lease deed in the name of the first defendant, dated 15.05.1961. Ex.B4 was the sale deed in the name of Velu Ambalakaarar executed by Veeran Ambalakaarar. Ex.B7 was the kist receipt in the names of Veerappan Ambalam, Pazhanivel Ambalam and Valliammai. 9. By Judgment and decree, dated 14.06.2004, the learned District Munsif, Pattukkottai, found that Ex.A1 which is the settlement register of Kazhanikottai Village, showed that the suit items of property were in the names of plaintiff temple (Sri Ayyanar Temple). Ex.A2 dated 19.08.1995 is the kist paid by Veeraiyan for patta no.1. The learned Judge also found that Ex.B2 is a sale deed in the name of the first defendant Valliyammai W/o Veerappan Ambalam. Ex.A2 dated 19.08.1995 is the kist paid by Veeraiyan for patta no.1. The learned Judge also found that Ex.B2 is a sale deed in the name of the first defendant Valliyammai W/o Veerappan Ambalam. In this sale deed, out of 1.74 acres in S.No.80/1, 61 cents had been sold to the first defendant by sale deed, dated 02.05.1961. Ex.B3 is a lease deed and other exhibits on the side of the defendant reflected that they were in possession of the suit property. The learned Judge also examined the evidence of PW-1 who stated that after the death of his father Subban Ambalam, about 10 years before the filing of the suit, he had taken over as hereditary trustee. He stated that the temple was the owner of the properties. The learned Judge on the basis of the evidence found that with respect to the suit property, apart from the portion in the first item purchased by the first defendant, the other portion and the second, third and fourth items were the properties of the temple. The learned Judge, however, found that Veeraiyan PW-1 has not established the fact that he was the hereditary trustee. He had not sought for declaration that he was the hereditary trustee. The learned Judge, specifically found that Veeraiyan had not established that he was the hereditary trustee. In view of those finding, the learned Judge, granted the relief of declaration of title except for the portion purchased by the first defendant in item no.1, but however declined to grant the relief of recovery of possession. A.S.No.7 of 2006: 10. Challenging the said findings, the plaintiff filed the said appeal which came up for consideration before the Subordinate Court, Pattukkottai. Before Judgment, dated 24.11.2006, the learned Subordinate Judge framed the points for determination. He reappraised the evidence. The learned Judge also found that the father of Veeraiyan is Subban Ambalam and he was one of the four chiefs. The learned Judge also found that the first defendant had purchased a portion of item no.1 by sale deed, dated 02.05.1961 which was marked as Ex.B2. The learned Judge also found that the suit properties were in the possession of the defendants. It was also found that Veeraiyan had left the village and there were no documents to show that he was the hereditary trustee. Ex.B5, gift deed was also adverse to him. The learned Judge also found that the suit properties were in the possession of the defendants. It was also found that Veeraiyan had left the village and there were no documents to show that he was the hereditary trustee. Ex.B5, gift deed was also adverse to him. Specific finding had been given that he was not the hereditary trustee. Consequently, the learned Judge also upheld the findings of the Trial Court and granted the declaratory right with respect to the suit properties except 61 cents purchased by the first defendant by Ex.B2 in item no.1. However, the relief of recovery of possession was not granted. The appeal was dismissed and the Judgment of the Trial Court was confirmed. S.A(MD).NO.205 of 2007:- 11. The plaintiff had filed the present second appeal. The second appeal was not admitted and notice alone was ordered. Thereafter, the following substantial question of law was framed: "(i). Whether the temple which is represented by hereditary trustee has right to seeking recovery of possession through the hereditary trustee?" 12. Heard, arguments advanced by Mr.V.K.Vijayaragavan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.M.P.Senthil, learned counsel for the contesting respondents. 13. Both the Courts below have found that the appellant was entitled for the relief of declaration of title with respect to the suit property except 61 cents purchased by the deceased first defendant by Ex.B2. It was also found by both the Courts below that the defendants are in possession. Both the Courts below refused to grant the relief of recovery of possession, since they did not consider Veeraiyan, as the hereditary trustee though he claimed to be the hereditary trustee, it was specifically found that he was disqualified and cannot claim the status of hereditary trustee. In this connection, the Courts had examined in detail Ex.B5 which is dated 04.12.1933. It is a gift deed executed by the sons of Chinnathambi Ambalakaarar in favour of Velan Ambalakaarar, son of Veeran Ambalakaarar. By the said document, the family of Veeraiyan who represents the plaintiff had given up their claim for hereditary trusteeship. It was also found that Veeraiyan was not living in the Kazhanikottai Village. Consequently, both the Courts below had declined to grant the relief of recovery of possession to the plaintiff. By the said document, the family of Veeraiyan who represents the plaintiff had given up their claim for hereditary trusteeship. It was also found that Veeraiyan was not living in the Kazhanikottai Village. Consequently, both the Courts below had declined to grant the relief of recovery of possession to the plaintiff. A careful reading of the Judgments reveal that the counsel for the plaintiff had argued that even if Veeraiyan is not a hereditary trustee, he can claim recovery of possession as a worshiper. Both the Courts below had negatived this claim. The relief of recovery of possession cannot be granted since Veeraiyan had not established that he was the hereditary trustee of the temple. He had not sought a declaratory relief to that effect. This findings fact cannot be re-appreciated by this Court as has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Krishnan Vs. Backiam and Another, (2008) 1 CTC 446, wherein, it has been observed as follows: "The High Court in second appeal cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court." 14. In this case also, the fact that Veeraiyan was not the hereditary trustee and that except for 61 cents purchased by the deceased first defendant in item no.1, the plaintiff was the owner of the other portion of item no.1 and items 2 and 3 and that the defendants were in possession of the property are facts which have been concurrently established. The disqualification of Veeraiyan prohibits grant of the relief of recovery of possession to him. I find no infirmity in the Judgment and decree of both the Courts below. 15. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs.