JUDGMENT : 1. The appellants filed a suit before the Lower Court for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and agents from performing religious ceremonies as indicated in the notice against the rights of the plaintiffs and Thalayari colony people and thereby not to disturb the possession and enjoyment of the Temple of Samundeeswari Amman situated at Alathur Village, Thalayari colonly. The plaintiffs who have last the case before the Lower Appellate Court filed the present Second Appeal before this Court. 2. The Lower Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed an appeal before the Lower Appellate Court, which dismissed the suit and granted relief in favour of the respondent herein, as against that, the present Second Appeal is filed. 3. The case of the plaintiffs is as follows: (i) The defendant filed a suit for himself and for entire body of Alathur Thalayari Colony. The plaintiffs are the worshiper of Arulmigu Samundeeswari Temple situated in Survey No.229 of Alathur Village, which was under the care and custody of the Alathur Thalayari Colony people. The said Temple is in existence for more than 200 years. The plaintiffs and their predecessors were managing the Temple and performing all poojas and conducting annual religious ceremonies and the periodical poojas are being performed by the Alathur Thalayari Colony People. In order to prove their enjoyment of the Temple, the second plaintiff paid the electricity consumption charges in the name of the Temple to the Electricity Board. Accordingly, by virtue of the electricity bill, the second plaintiff is acting as a Trustee of the Temple. (ii) In order to prove the enjoyment of the Temple, the Settlement Tahsildar assigned a part of land in Survey No.151/1, 66 cents in favour of Arulmigu Samundeeswari Amman Temple and the same was managed by one Velayutham, father of the second plaintiff; Raghavan, father of the third plaintiff; Gengammal; and the first plaintiff. After the demise of one Velayutham, Raghavan and Gengammal were granted Kudivaram patta by the Tahsildar proceedings. (iii) As on date, the plaintiffs are in the representative capacity of the entire Alathur Thalayari Colony people, who are managing the land assigned to the Temple and also performed poojas out of the amount contributed by the Thalayari colony people. After the demise of one Velayutham, Raghavan and Gengammal were granted Kudivaram patta by the Tahsildar proceedings. (iii) As on date, the plaintiffs are in the representative capacity of the entire Alathur Thalayari Colony people, who are managing the land assigned to the Temple and also performed poojas out of the amount contributed by the Thalayari colony people. While such being the position, the facts are well known to all the people who resided in the Alathur Village. The Caste Hindu people have got no other rights except the worshiping right. In order to give trouble to the plaintiffs' colony, the defendant, with his associates, attempted to perform the early religious functions, thereby they issued pamphlets with regard to the conduct of poojas. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs filed a suit before the Lower Court for the above said relief. 4. The defendant filed written statement as follows: (i) He denied all the allegations contained in the plaint. Arulmigu Samundeeswari Temple was under the care and custody of the Alathur Thalayari colony people and the plaintiffs and their predecessors were managing the Temple, performing poojas and the second plaintiff is acting as a Trustee. Apart from the above, the further contention of the respondent/defendant categorically is that the second plaintiff is not a Trustee. (ii) The said Temple is situated near the Village, where the Caste Hindus lived. The Temple was built by Ayasami Mudaliar, Natesa Mudaliar, Iyyasami Mudaliar, Apparao Mudaliar, Govinda Naidu, Perumal Naidu and Kitshappa Naidu, who were the Trustees in succession all these years. The present Trustee is the defendant, who has been functioning as a Trustee for the last four years. The plaintiffs and their ancestors never acted as Trustees and never in possession and management of the said Temple. The Caste Hindus appointed one Samarapuri Desikar as priest and he is conducting daily poojas in the said Temple. Prior to him, one Vedachala Naicker was the Poojari and prior to him, Saminatha Pillai was the Poojari. The said Poojaries were nominated by the Caste Hindus. (iii) Survey No.126/6, an extent of 60 cents of land, was gifted by one Natesa Mudaliar as early as in 1923. The Trustees have been leasing out the Temple land for cultivation to the Poojari and others from time to time. The lease consideration is used for daily poojas in the said Samundeeswari Amman Temple. (iii) Survey No.126/6, an extent of 60 cents of land, was gifted by one Natesa Mudaliar as early as in 1923. The Trustees have been leasing out the Temple land for cultivation to the Poojari and others from time to time. The lease consideration is used for daily poojas in the said Samundeeswari Amman Temple. While such being the position, in order to create problem and taking advantage of the Kudivaram Right granted in favour of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs were disturbing the daily poojas and they wanted to take over the pooja rights and the land gifted to the above said Samundeeswari Temple. (iv) The defendant also filed an additional written statement stating that the respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.7/89 for the similar issue, and the said suit was decreed Ex-parte in favour of the defendant. Already, the respondent/defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.7/89 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu against the present plaintiffs 1 to 3, 5 and the son of the second plaintiff for permanent injunction in respect of the above said Temple, namely Arulmigu Samundeeswari Amman Temple, restraining the present plaintiffs from interfering with the management of the suit Temple. (v) The said suit was decreed Ex-parte on 29.06.1990. Thereafter, with the delay of 460 days, the second defendant who was the fifth defendant in O.S.No.7/89, filed I.A.No.1864/91 to set aside the Ex-parte Judgment and the same was dismissed on merits on 28.08.1992. After recording the evidence of both sides in the I.A., worshiping right was confirmed in favour of the appellants. Being not satisfied with the above said worshiping right, the appellants/plaintiffs filed a vexatious suit before the Lower Court. 5. The substantial question of law that was framed at the time of admission of the Second Appeal on 31.01.2003, is as follows: "Whether the first appellate Court was right in concluding that the defendant is the Trustee of the suit Temple and whether there are materials to prove that the defendant is the hereditary Trustee of the Temple?" 6. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that by virtue of suit Temple, constructed and established by the Thalayari Colony people from 200 years onwards, the appellant Colony people appointed a Poojari and conducted daily poojas. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that by virtue of suit Temple, constructed and established by the Thalayari Colony people from 200 years onwards, the appellant Colony people appointed a Poojari and conducted daily poojas. However, the Caste Hindus, in order to dominate the appellant Colony people and usurp the right of the appellants, issued a bit notice as if the Caste Hindus only conducted daily poojas. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants/plaintiffs filed the suit for permanent injunction and other relief before the Lower Court. The Lower Court granted relief in favour of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent/defendant filed an appeal before the Lower Appellate Court. The Lower Appellate Court confirming the patta rights, however, rejecting the prayer with regard to perform poojas by the appellants, against which the present Second Appeal is filed. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that in view of the question of law framed by this Court, the second appellant acted as a Trustee, by virtue of the Kudivaram Right granted in favour of his father as well as the other appellants and their predecessors by order dated 25.08.1966, wherein the Settlement Tahsildar, by invoking Section 8(1) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion to Ryotwari) Act 1963 (Act 30/93), after conducting enquiry, granted patta in favour of Samundeeswari Amman Temple as well as the appellants' predecessors. By virtue of the Kudivaram patta, the second appellant acted as a Trustee. From then onwards, the Thalayari Colony people performed poojas. However, the learned counsel for the appellants fairly conceded that the Kudivaram Right was granted in Survey No.158/1, however, the Temple was situated in Survey No.229. 8. On a perusal of the entire documents filed before the lower Court, the appellants were unable to prove Survey No.229 assigned in favour of the Thalayari Colony people. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant submitted that Survey No.229 situated wherein the Hindu Caste People are residing. 10. 8. On a perusal of the entire documents filed before the lower Court, the appellants were unable to prove Survey No.229 assigned in favour of the Thalayari Colony people. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant submitted that Survey No.229 situated wherein the Hindu Caste People are residing. 10. Apart from the above, Ex.B8 to Ex.B10 show that one Ganapathy Mudaliyar has maintained the Temple in 1923 and the lease deed was executed by one Saminatha Pillai in favour of one Ganapathy Mudaliar and Ganapathy Mudaliar has undertaken to maintain daily lighting in the said Temple from the income derived from the property leased to him and the same property was gifted by Natesa Mudaliar as early as on 1923 and patta has also been issued by the Tahsildar and the said land is still in existence. 11. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the respondent and perused the materials available on record. 12. On a perusal of the documents as well as the evidence adduced by the parties, it is seen that PW1 admitted that he does not know anything about the land belonging to the Temple and on a perusal of the patta granted, it is clear that the patta was granted in favour of the Thalayari Colony People in Survey No.158/1. However, no documents were produced before this Court to prove the Temple was under care and custody of the second plaintiff, except the patta granted by the Tahsildar in favour of the second plaintiff. Patta was granted in S.No.158/1 and not in Survey No.229. However, other materials show that by Ex.B8 to Ex.B10, the Caste Hindu people were appointed Poojaries, for conducting daily poojas and allotted some land by way of lease to the Poojaries for performing poojas and lighting the Temple. So, no materials were placed before this Court with regard to the poojas conducted by the appellant. 13. On a perusal of the Lower Appellate Court Judgment, it is seen that the appellants have not established their right before this Court either by way of oral evidence or documentary evidence, as if the second plaintiff is a Trustee or by way of any other evidence. This Court is not in a position to grant any relief to the appellants. This Court is not in a position to grant any relief to the appellants. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered against the appellants, with regard to the worshiping rights, the appellants already obtained order in I.A.No.1864/91 in O.S.No.7/89 and they are having the right to worship in the said Temple, however, conducting poojas is negatived. 14. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. The Judgment and decree of the Appellate Court in AS.No.8 of 1997 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu is confirmed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.