that Anandavalli as his wife, after the execution of said Will, the said Anandavalli was died on 19.05.1996 leaving a son born through Mahamuni Poosari and hence, Pandiyan Poosari adopted the first respondent as his son, through the deed of adoption, dated 07.11.1996. Thereafter, on 07.12.1999, the said Pandiyan Poosari had executed a registered Will, in which, he had stated that the adopted son Maruthupandi has got every right in Arulmigu Pandi Muneeswarar Temple as his legal heir and declared Chellapandi as his guardian further in the Will it was stated that a sum of Rs.10,000/-has to be paid as maintenance to his wife Seethlakshmi in his pooja turn of Arulmigu Pandi Muneeswarar Temple, further he had executed a settlement deed, dated 20.10.2003, wherein he has mentioned that his son Maruthu Pandi having the pooja right. In the said document also, it was noted that the petitioner Seethalakshmi is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/-during the pooja turn of Pandiyan Poosari. Based on this settlement deed dated 20.10.2003, the first defendant claimed absolute right in the properties of Pandiyan Poosari. In the meantime, Pandiyan Poosari was died on 12.11.2003 and after the death of Pandiyan Poosari, a petition was filed before the HR&CE authorities to recognise the petitioner, as legalheir and permit to do the pooja turn and the said order was challenged by the Respondent before this Court. This Court directed the first respondent to establish his right before the Civil Court and till the decree passed by the Civil Court, the petitioner being the poosari permitted to attend her turn in the Temple. In the said circumstances, now in the suit, the decree is passed against the permission given to the petitioner, hence, it is necessary to suspend the said decree till the disposal of the main appeal.
