JUDGMENT (Prayer in S.A.No.1460 of 1997: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet made in A.S.No.129/1995 dated 07.08.1997 reversing the judgment and decree of the Court of the District Munsif Udumalpet made in O.S.No.323/1992 dated 25.10.1995. S.A.No.1461 of 1997: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet made in A.S.No.130/1995 dated 07.08.1997 reversing the judgment and decree of the Court of the District Munsif Udumalpet made in O.S.No.296/1992 dated 25.10.1995.) 1. These second appeals are preferred as against the judgments and decrees of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet made in A.S.Nos.129 & 130 of 1995 dated 07.08.1997 reversing the judgments and decrees of the Court of the District Munsif Udumalpet made in O.S.Nos.323 & 296 of 1992 dated 25.10.1995. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court. 3. The case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.323/1992 in brief is as follows:- 3.1. The suit is filed for declaration and permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff is on the Southern side of Tamil Nadu there was Rajavur Rajakambalathu Naicker Community who belong to the Kings family, in which part of them were spread to various places in Tamil Nadu. Hundred years before one of their section called Kondava Naicker were resided at Rajavur and that place called as Rajavur alias Kondavan Naickenpatti, since the Rajakambalathu Naicker were resided in the place is also called as Kondavan Naickenpatti. They constructed temple and according to their customs and celebrated festivals and performed poojas. The plaintiffs have collected tax from their community people for constructing the temple and other renovation work. But they have no right over the temple since, it is not belonging to particular person or community. It is situated on western side of the boundary of Periakottai Taivadi Village. After the death of said Kondava Naicker, the plaintiffs have constructed structure over there and prayed him. There is a Karupusamy temple. The defendants have land near the Kaliamman Temple. In between the temple and the land belongs to the defendants there is a ridge about 20 feet away from the temple, the land belonged to the defendants is situated. After the death of said Kondava Naicker, the plaintiffs have constructed structure over there and prayed him. There is a Karupusamy temple. The defendants have land near the Kaliamman Temple. In between the temple and the land belongs to the defendants there is a ridge about 20 feet away from the temple, the land belonged to the defendants is situated. While being so, the defendants trespassed into the temple property, to occupy the same. After purchase of the said land from the defendants, the defendants vehemently offered the plaintiff for supplying the water to the worshipers and also offered to maintain the temple for which the defendants was permitted to do the same. Further he also undertakes to provide water by motor pumpsets to the temple. Utilising these circumstances, defendants claimed that the temple itself situated in the land belonged to him and he objected the celebration of festival and other poojas without prior permission. In fact, the Kaaliammal temple, Karupusamy Temple and the Kondavanaicker temple are situated in the seperate places. Hence the suit. 4. Resisting the plaintiff's case, defendants filed written statement and stating that in the Rajavur Village, the people belong to plaintiff, other community called Tuluva Vellala and others also living together for the time immemorial. The entire averments made in the plaints are denied and the temple is not at all constructed for their particular religion and the said temples are constructed by all general public and all are worshippers to the said temples. In fact, the place in which the temples are constructed originally belonged to the predecessor of the defendants. Further for renovation of those temples, collected donations from the general public and the said temple constructed in S.No.81/2. In that temple there is no structure of Kondava Naicker and there is no temple called Karupusamy. Though the land situated nearby the temples belong to the defendants, the defendants never encroached any land belonged to the temple. The plaintiffs also never enjoyed any right over the well situated in the land belonged to the defendants. The defendants also filed a suit as against the plaintiffs in respect of the temple in O.S.No.292 of 1992 and suppressed the fact and filed the present suit and prayed for dismissal of the suit. S.A.No.1461 of 1997: 5. The plaintiffs also never enjoyed any right over the well situated in the land belonged to the defendants. The defendants also filed a suit as against the plaintiffs in respect of the temple in O.S.No.292 of 1992 and suppressed the fact and filed the present suit and prayed for dismissal of the suit. S.A.No.1461 of 1997: 5. The case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.296/1992 is that the suit temple and the Vinayagar temple are situated in the Rajavur Village. All Village people have celebrated temple festivals and worshipping both the temples by all Community people. The suit temple is situated at Mywadi Village comprised in Survey No.81. The Vinayagar Temple is situated at Mywadi Village comprised in S.No.86 and classified as Natham. Every year the general public unite together and celebrate the temple festivals. In fact, all poojas performed by the funds collected from general public. The plaintiffs as well as the defendants and all other general public have joined together and collected tax for renovating the temples and after renovating the temples conducted Kumbabishekam festival. The defendants belong to Kambalathur Naicker Community and they are represented by the defendants 2 and 3. There was a dispute between the defendants and other community people for celebrating the temple festival. Thereafter, there was a panchayat held on 11.04.1991 in which they resolved that all combined together and collecting tax for celebration of temple festivals jointly. But the defendants community did not comply the resolutions and they announced that they are going to celebrate temple festival separately on 31.02.1992. When it was questioned by the plaintiffs and other general public the defendant said that the entire temple belongs exclusively for their community and as such, the plaintiffs or any other general public have no right over the temple. Therefore, the plaintiffs lodged a complaint once again and filed a suit. 6. Resisting the same, defendants filed written statement and stating that in the Rajavur Village, the people belong to plaintiffs, other community called Tuluva Vellala and others also living together for the time immemorial. The entire averments made in the plaints are denied and the temple is not at all constructed for their particular religion and the said temples are constructed by all general public and all are worshippers to the said temples. In fact, the place in which the temples are constructed originally belonged to the predecessor of the plaintiffs. The entire averments made in the plaints are denied and the temple is not at all constructed for their particular religion and the said temples are constructed by all general public and all are worshippers to the said temples. In fact, the place in which the temples are constructed originally belonged to the predecessor of the plaintiffs. Further for renovation of those temples, collected donations from the general public and the said temple constructed in S.No.81/2. In that temple, there is no structure of Kondava Naicker and there is no temple called Karupusamy. Though the land situated nearby the temples belonged to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs never encroached any land belonged to the temple. The defendants also never enjoyed any right over the well situated in the land belongs to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also filed a suit as against the defendants in respect of the temple in O.S.No.292 of 1992 and suppressed the fact and filed the present suit and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 7. The other general public on behalf of the Periyakottai Village, Udumalpet Taluk filed another suit as against the plaintiffs in O.S.No.323 of 1992 and O.S.No.296 of 1992 before the District Munsif Court, Udumalpet. All the three suits clubbed together and passed common judgments and decrees. 8. On the side of the plaintiffs, P.W.1 to P.W.4 were examined and eight documents were marked as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.8. On the side of the defendants, they examined DW.1 to DW.4 and were marked as Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.14. The Advocate Commissioner's Report and plans were marked as Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.6. Based on the materials placed on record, both the oral and documentary evidences adduced by the respective parties and the submissions made by the learned counsel, the trial Court dismissed the suit in O.S.No.323 of 1992 and allowed the suit in O.S.No.296 of 1992. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs in O.S.No.323 of 1992 preferred an Appeal Suit in A.S.No.129 of 1995. The first Appellate Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. The defendants in O.S.No.296 of 1992 preferred an Appeal Suit in A.S.No.130 of 1995 and the same was allowed by dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants in O.S.No.323 of 1992 preferred the Second Appeal in S.A.No.1460 of 1997. The first Appellate Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. The defendants in O.S.No.296 of 1992 preferred an Appeal Suit in A.S.No.130 of 1995 and the same was allowed by dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants in O.S.No.323 of 1992 preferred the Second Appeal in S.A.No.1460 of 1997. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.130 of 1995, the plaintiffs preferred the second appeal in S.A.No.1461 of 1997. 9. At the time of admission of the second appeal in S.A.No.1460 of 1997, the following substantial questions of law were formulated for consideration: “Whether the lower Appellate Court is right in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff claiming exclusively right over the suit temple without any documentary or oral evidence to show that the so called founder Kondavanaicker constructed the same about 100 years back in Rajavur only for his community people?” 10. At the time of admission of the second appeal in S.A.No.1461 of 1997, the following substantial questions of law were formulated for consideration: “Whether the lower Appellate Court is right in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff by holding that the suit temples are exclusively belonging to Rajavur Rajakambalathu Naicker Community people without any documentary or oral evidence to show that the so called founder Kondavanaicken constructed the same about 100 years back in Rajavur only for his community people?” 11. This Court clubbed both the appeals together and passing common judgment and decree. 12. Heard Mr.N.Thiagarajan, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff in both appeals. 13. Plaintiffs in O.S.No.323 of 1992 filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit temple. At the same time, the plaintiffs in O.S.No.296 of 1992 namely the defendants in O.S.No.323 of 1992 filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the very same suit temples. According to the plaintiffs, the temples are public temples and the festivals are conducted by all community people. In fact, they collected tax from all the community people and conducted temple festivals. They also joined together renovated the temple and conducted Kumbabishekam. Whereas, they claimed that the suit temples are exclusively for their community and the temples are situated in their land in which the plaintiffs have no right over the temples. In fact, they collected tax from all the community people and conducted temple festivals. They also joined together renovated the temple and conducted Kumbabishekam. Whereas, they claimed that the suit temples are exclusively for their community and the temples are situated in their land in which the plaintiffs have no right over the temples. Again the defendant also filed for the same relief and for the very same suit temple against the plaintiffs. In both the suits, the trial Court concluded that the suit temples are common for all community and general public and they are not belong to the defendants in O.S.No.323 of 1992. Further concluded that in the suit filed by the defendants in O.S.No.296 of 1992, the plaintiffs have no exclusive right over the temple and the temple itself is situated in their land, in which the trial Court dismissed the suit. Since the suit in O.S.No.323 of 1992 decided in favour of the plaintiff as that the suit temples are public temples and all the worshippers are having equal right to worship the temple. 14. Now the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the suit temples are worshipped by all common general public belong to all communities. All are jointly collected tax and conducted temple festivals. Unfortunately, the first Appellate Court wrongly concluded that the suit temples belong exclusively for the defendants on the basis of evidence of PW.2 and PW.3. In fact, except deposition they did not mark any documents to prove that the suit temples are owned by them and thus, temples are situated in the land belong to them. However, now as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants, the suit temples are worshipped by all common people belong to various communities. They also jointly collected tax for celebrating festivals and to perform regular Poojas. Therefore, in S.A.No.1460 of 1997, the findings of the first Appellate Court are necessarily to be interfered with, since the findings are perverse and against the evidence on record. In view of the above discussion, the substantial questions of law, formulated by this Court are answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants in O.S.No.323 of 1992. 15. Therefore, in S.A.No.1460 of 1997, the findings of the first Appellate Court are necessarily to be interfered with, since the findings are perverse and against the evidence on record. In view of the above discussion, the substantial questions of law, formulated by this Court are answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants in O.S.No.323 of 1992. 15. Insofar as the second appeal in S.A.No.1461 of 1997 is concerned, the substantial questions of law formulated by this Court are accordingly answered in favour of the defendants and as against the plaintiffs in O.S.No.296 of 1992. 16. In fine, both the Second Appeals are allowed and the judgments and decrees passed by the first Appellate Court in A.S.Nos.129 & 130 of 1995 dated 07.08.1997 are hereby set aside and resultantly, both the judgments and decrees dated 25.10.1995 passed by the trial Court in O.S.Nos.296 & 323 of 1992 are restored. No costs.