DEVARAJAN Vs. C SELVARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SECOND Appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri, in A.S.No. 35 of 2012, dated 24.03.2014, confirming the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif, Palacode, in O.S.No.217 of 2010, dated 21.06.2012.

(2.) ORIGINALLY , the appellants herein/plaintiffs have filed the suit in O.S.No.217 of 2010 before the learned District Munsif, Palacode, for the relief of declaration, to declare that the plaintiffs are also the joint Hereditary Trustees of the suit Temple along with the defendant and for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from in any manner interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and management of the suit Temple and its properties and doing pooja in the suit Temple. In the plaint, the plaintiffs have averred that originally, their ancestors were managing the affairs of the suit Temple. Pursuant to which, now the plaintiffs and the defendant are the joint Hereditary Trustees -cum - Poojaries of the suit Temple. The plaintiffs came to know that the defendant obtained an order in O.A.No.1 of 2001, dated 01.02.2006, in the office of the Joint Commissioner, HR&CE, Salem, declaring the defendant as the Hereditary Trustee of the suit Temple and hence, the Suit. The defendant has filed a written statement denying the allegations contained in the plaint as false. According to the defendant, the plaintiffs have never participated in the affairs of the suit Temple and recognizing the work of the defendant, he is declared as the Hereditary Trustee of the suit Temple in O.A.No.1 of 2001 and therefore, the plaintiffs have no right over the suit Temple and they are not entitled for any relief. The Lower Court on considering the oral and documentary evidence, has dismissed the suit. Against which, the plaintiffs have filed an appeal in A.S.No.35 of 2012 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri. The Lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, thereby, confirming the judgment and decree of the lower Court, by judgment dated 24.03.2014. Aggrieved against the concurrent judgments, the plaintiffs have come forward with the Second Appeal.

(3.) MS .G.Sumitra, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/ plaintiffs would contend that they are not disputing insofar as to the order passed by the Joint Commissioner, HR&CE, Salem, as to the Hereditary Trusteeship right, but, what is their grievance is that they have not been impleaded as parties in O.A.No.1 of 2001, they should have been impleaded as a party, because, they also belong to the same family and they are also having joint rights in the management of the Temple, which has not been considered by the Joint Commissioner and as the plaintiffs have not been impleaded as parties, they have filed the suit. She would further contend that since the Civil Court states that it has no jurisdiction, they have no other legal remedy excepting to file the Second Appeal to set at rest the wrong committed by the Joint Commissioner, HR&CE, Salem, by passing the order in O.A.No.1 of 2001, dated 01.02.2006.