Arulmigu Mariamman @ Santhana Mariamman Thirukoil Konar Community through its Nattanmai, Kannan vs Arulmigu Mariamman @ Santhana Mariamman Thirukoil, & Ors.

Challenging the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.15 of 2011, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Srivilliputhur, confirming the judgment

and decree passed in O.S.No.204 of 2008, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Srivilliputhur, the second defendant has filed the above Second

Appeal.

The plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.204 of 2008 for declaration and for permanent injunction. The brief case of the plaintiffs is as follows:

According to the plaintiffs, the suit property is a temple belonging to the plaintiffs'' community. The second item is the Nandavanam belonging to the

temple. Five community people are in-charge of the temple and each community is having a key with them. The first defendant''s community is

doing poosary work. The revenue records stand in the name of the temple. All the community people are worshiping in the temple. In the year

1995, there was a dispute and on 05.06.1995, there was a peace committee meeting held by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Watrap, in which both

parties are agreed to some understanding. In the year 2005, there was another dispute between the parties and another peace committee meeting

was held on 01.03.2006 by the Tahsildar, Srivilliputhur, in which also, an agreement was reached by all the parties. Since the defendants are acting

against the agreement reached in the peace committee meeting, the plaintiffs have filed the suit.

The brief case of the defendants is as follows:

According to the defendants, the suit properties are belonging to them and they alone are managing the property and the plaintiffs are worshiping in

the temple, but they are not having any key for the temple. The electricity service connection was originally in the name of one Venkatachalam

Konar and subsequently, transferred in the name of the temple. The defendants alone are paying the electricity charges. The peace committee

meetings are not binding on the defendants. The defendants have not denied the right of the plaintiffs in worshiping the temple. In these

circumstances, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.

Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiffs, P.W.1 was examined and 18 documents viz., Exs.A.1 to A.18 were marked. On the side of

the defendants, D.W.1 was examined and 6 documents viz., Exs.B.1 to B.6 were marked. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the case

of both sides, partly decreed the suit by declaring that the decisions taken in the peace committee meeting held in the presence of the Tahsildar,

Srivilliputhur is binding on the parties. Further the trial Court passed a scheme decree by directing the plaintiffs to celebrate the temple festival in the

month of Aani and also directed the defendants to celebrate the temple festival in the month of Vaikasi each year. The trial Court also granted an

order of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the temple festival, when the plaintiffs celebrate the festival in the month of Aani

and also granted an order of injunction restraining the plaintiffs from interfering with the temple festival, when the defendants celebrate the festival in

the month of Vaikasi every year. Against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendants preferred an appeal in A.S.No. 15 of 2011

and the lower Appellate Court also confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. As against the concurrent

findings of the Courts below, the second defendant has filed the above Second Appeal.

Heard Mr.I.Velpradeep, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr.V.Sitharanjandas, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 1

and 2 and Mr.M.Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the third respondent.

The appellant has raised the following substantial questions of law in the Second Appeal:

A. Whether the suit for declaration is maintainable in law in the absence of seeking declaration of title and right on the suit temple namely Arulmigu

Mariamman @ Santhana Mariamman?

B. Whether the resolution passed in the RDO peace committee meeting dated 01.03.2006 is a legally enforceable one by the civil Court?

C. Whether the suit for framing of scheme decree is maintainable in law?

D. Whether the civil Court is competent to decide the dispute in question between the parties in respect of the temple namely Arulmigu

Mariamman @ Santhana Mariamman by framing scheme decree?

It is not in dispute that a peace committee meeting was held on 01.03.2006 in the presence of the Tahsildar and an agreement was arrived at

between the parties. The agreement between the parties was marked as Ex.A.6. The settlement arrived between the parties in the peace

committee meeting held in the presence of the Tahsildar was signed by all the parties. D.W.1 also admitted the peace committee meeting held in

the presence of the Tahsildar and also submitted that there was no coercion by anyone in the said meeting. He also admitted that he had signed

Ex.A.6 with full consent. Since the earlier peace committee meeting held in the year 1995 was held in the presence of the Sub Inspector of Police,

the Courts below have rightly rejected the first prayer sought for in the suit. The Courts below have rightly accepted the peace committee meeting

held in the presence of the Tahsildar and also granted a declaratory decree in respect of the said resolution.

Further the Courts below have rightly held that the plaintiffs are entitled to conduct the festival in the tamil month of Aani every year and the

defendants are entitled to conduct the festival in the tamil month of Vaikasi every year. The Courts below have also granted a decree restraining the

defendants from interfering with the temple festival conducted by the plaintiffs in the tamil month of Aani, similarly restrained the plaintiffs from

interfering with the temple festival conducted by the defendants in the tamil month of Vaikasi. In these circumstances, I do not find any error or

irregularity in the judgment and decree of the Courts below.

The learned Counsel appearing on either side submitted that so far as the keys of the temple is concerned, two sets of keys may be made and

one shall be kept by the plaintiffs and the other set shall be kept by the defendants.

Since both the learned Counsel suggested this suggestion, this can be implemented by the plaintiffs and the defendants.

In these circumstances, I do not find any ground much less any substantial question of law to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts

below. The Second Appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the

connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.