Madras High Court
Ranganathan (Died) vs K.Madhan on 2 November, 2022
A.S.No.79 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 2.11.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
A.S.No.79 of 2017
1.Ranganathan (died)
2.Govindasamy
3.Murugesan
4.Perumal
5.Mariyappan
6.Palaniammal
7.Nadarajan
8.Sakrapani
9.Perumalsamy ... Appellants
(Appellants 6 to 9 brought on record as LRs of the
deceased 1st appellant vide order of the Court dated
08.02.2020 made in C.M.P.Nos.2228, 2231 and
2232 of 2020 in A.S.No.79 of 2017)
vs
1.K.Madhan
1/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.79 of 2017
2.M.Krishna Jayanth
3.The Joint Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Sri Kottaimariamman Koil Mandapam
Salem. ... Respondents
Prayer: First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code,
prayer, to set aside the judgement and decree in O.S.No.234 of 2014 on the
file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai dated 17.04.2015.
For Appellants : Ms.R.Poornima
for Mr.T.Panchatsaram
For R1 and R2 : Mr.T.Dhanasekaran
For R3 : Mr.M.Bindran
Additional Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
The defendants 1 to 5 are the appellants.
2. The 1st and 2nd respondents filed a suit in O.S.No.234 of 2014 for
declaration that they are the joint hereditary trustees of the suit temple along
with the appellants 1 to 5 herein and for a consequential direction to the 3 rd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.79 of 2017
respondent to pass a suitable order giving effect to such declaration. They
also sought for injunction restraining the appellants from interfering with the
right to function as hereditary trustees of the suit temple. The suit was
decreed in part granting a decree in favour of the 1st respondent declaring that
he is joint hereditary trustees along with the appellants 1 to 5 herein and for a
consequential direction to the 3rd respondent to enforce the said decree of
declaration. The Trial Court also granted an injunction restraining the
appellants from interfering with the hereditary trusteeship of the
1st respondent. Holding that the 2nd respondent being son of the 1st respondent
is not entitled to maintain suit during life time of 1st respondent, dismissed the
suit in so far as he is concerned.
3. Aggrieved by the said decree, the appellants 1 to 5/defendants 1 to 5
filed this appeal. While pending the appeal, the 1st appellant passed away and
hence, the appellants 6 to 9 were brought on record as his legal
representatives.
4. According to the 1st and 2nd respondents/plaintiffs, a small village
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.79 of 2017
temple by name Sri Chendrayasamy Temple at Kudimenahalli Village,
Agaram Post, Pochampalli Taluk, Krishnagiri District has been under
management and poojariship of the 1st and 2nd respondents and their ancestors
from time immemorial for several decades. The trusteeship and poojariship of
the said temple vested with the ancestors of the 1st and 2nd
respondents/plaintiffs. According to the 1st and 2nd respondents, one
Mattukaran @ Kali Gounder and his brother Chinna Gounder were their
ancestors had been doing poojas and managing the affairs of the suit temple.
The 1st and 2nd respondents and the appellants are the descendants of said
Mattukaran @ Kali Goundar and his brother Chinna Goundar. It was averred
in the plaint that in the year 1987, the deceased 1st appellant/Ranganathan and
3 others filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner of HR & CE
Department, Salem under Section 63 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious
and Charitable Endowments Act, 22/1959 in O.A.No.254 of 1987 and got
orders that they were the hereditary trustees of the suit temple without
knowledge of the 1st and 2nd respondents/plaintiffs. It was stated that the
petitioners therein were pangalis (sharers) of the 1st and 2nd
respondents/plaintiffs. The applicants in O.A.No.254 of 1987 have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.79 of 2017
suppressed the line of succession of the plaintiffs in the genealogy in the
application filed before the department by leaving the plaintiffs and their
ancestors in the genealogy. It was stated that the 1st and 2nd
respondents/plaintiffs were descendants of said Mattukaran @ Kali Gounder
as described in para 3 of the application in O.A.No.254 of 1987. It was
further stated that the 1st and 2nd respondents were the main persons in the
management and performance of the poojas of the temple. Since the 1st
appellant and the other applicants in O.A.No.254 of 1987 obtained an order
behind their back as if they alone were holding the office as hereditary
trusteeship. The 1st and 2nd respondents were constrained to file the suit
seeking declaration.
5. The appellants herein filed a detailed written statement and resisted
the suit, wherein the averment found in plaint that the 1 st and 2nd respondents
were performing poojas and maintaining the temple was specifically denied.
It was specifically mentioned that the 1st and 2nd respondents were poojaries
of the temple but they were not hereditary trustees of the temple. It was
admitted by the appellants that Mattukaran @ Kali Gounder and his brother
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.79 of 2017
Chinna Gounder and their ancestors had been doing poojas and managing the
affairs of the temple. The appellants raised a plea that though the appellants
and the 1st and 2nd respondents were descendants of the aforesaid persons, it
was not true to say that all the descendants of the aforesaid persons were
hereditary trustees of the temple. Especially plea was raised that all the
descendants of the above said common ancestors had agreed and consented
that eldest sons of Mattukaran @ Kali Goundar and Chinna Goundar by name
Perumal Goundar and Pullar Goundar respectively and their heirs alone are
entitled to maintain the temple as hereditary trustees on behalf of the other
descendants. Thus, out of 126 descendants of Mattukaran @ Kali Goundar
and Chinnaiya Goundar, the appellants/defendants 1 to 5 alone had been
maintaining the suit temple as hereditary trustees to the knowledge and
consent of other pangalis (sharers) including the 1st and 2nd respondents. It
was further submitted that the hereditary trusteeship of the appellants was
declared by the competent statutory authority viz., the 3rd respondent herein.
It was also submitted that without challenging the order passed by the
competent authority by filing an appeal in the manner known to law, the suit
was not maintainable. That too after lapse of 23 years.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.79 of 2017
6. On these pleadings, the parties went to trial. On behalf the 1st and 2nd
respondents/plaintiffs, five witnesses were examined as PW.1 to PW5 and 18
documents were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A18. On behalf of the
appellants/defendants 1 to 5, three witnesses were examined as DW.1 to
DW.3 and 5 documents were marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B5.
7. The Trial Court on consideration of the oral and documentary
evidences, came to the conclusion that the 1st and 2nd respondents/plaintiffs
were entitled to declaration that they are joint hereditary trustees along with
appellants and for a other consequential relief as mentioned above. Aggrieved
by the said decree, the appellants/defendants 1 to 5 have come up with this
appeal.
8. Ms.R.Poornima, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
1st and 2nd respondents/plaintiffs having failed to challenge the order passed
by the Deputy Commissioner of HR & CE under Ex.A2, dated 07.08.1991
declaring that the deceased 1st appellant and other co-applicants therein as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.79 of 2017
hereditary trustees of the temple, not entitled to maintain the present suit. The
learned counsel for the appellants elaborated it by saying against the order
passed by the Deputy Commissioner of HR & CE under Section 63 (b) of the
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, an
appeal shall lie to the Commissioner of HR & CE under Section 69 of said
Act and against the order passed in such an appeal, the parties are entitled to
file a statutory suit under Section 70 of the said Act.
9. In the case on hand, the 1st and 2nd respondents without filing an
appeal challenging the order, straight away filed a suit that too after a lapse of
23 years. Hence, the suit is not only maintainable but also time barred. The
learned counsel further submitted that the power to declare that 1 st and 2nd
respondents as joint hereditary trustees along with appellants 1 to 5 is
exclusively within the domain of the statutory authorities constituted under
the HR & CE Act and hence, the suit is barred under Section 108 of HR & CE
Act. In support of her contention, she relied on the judgement reported in
2013 (3) MWN (Civil) 35 (R.Balasundaram vs. M.Ramalingam).
10. Per contra, Mr.T.Dhanasekaran, learned counsel appearing for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.79 of 2017
1st and 2nd respondents submitted that the Deputy Commissioner or Joint
Commissioner of HR & CE exercising jurisdiction under the Act can only
decide whether the office of the trusteeship of the temple is hereditary or not
and he cannot go into the further question as to who among the rival
claimants to the hereditary trusteeship is entitled to act as a hereditary trustee.
By relying on the judgement reported in 1981 (1) MLJ page 392, the learned
counsel submitted that if the question is who among rival claimants is entitled
to act as a hereditary trustee, the said question can be decided only by the
Civil Court not by the authorities constituted under the HR & CE Act.
11. The learned counsel also had taken this Court to the admissions of
the deceased 1st appellant/1st defendant who was examined as DW.1 and
submitted that the participation of the 1st and 2nd respondents in the
management of the temple was admitted by the 1st appellant himself and
hence, the entitlement of the 1st respondent to manage the affairs of the
temple stands proved by admission.
12. Heard the arguments of Ms.R.Poornima, learned counsel for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.79 of 2017
appellants and Mr.T.Dhanasekaran, learned counsel for the 1st and 2nd
respondents and Mr.M.Bindran, learned Additional Government Pleader for
the 3rd respondent and perused the typed-set of papers.
13. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the evidence available
on record and contentions of the learned counsel, the following points are
arising for consideration.
(a) Whether the suit is maintainable without filing statutory appeal
challenging the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of HR &
CE under Ex.A2.
(b) Whether the suit is barred under Section 108 of HR & CE Act.
(c) Whether the 1st and 2nd respondents are entitled to a declaration that
they are joint hereditary trustees along with the appellants 1 to 5.
Points: 1 to 3
14. Since all the three points arising for consideration are interlinked,
all the points are taken up for consideration jointly.
15. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.79 of 2017
suit is not maintainable by the 1st and 2nd respondents without challenging the
order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of HR & CE Department under
Ex.A2, dated 07.08.1991 recognising the 1st appellant and other applicants in
O.A.No.254 of 1987 as hereditary trustees of the temple. Section 63(b) of the
HR & CE Act, reads as follows:-
“63. [Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner] to
decide certain disputes and matters.-Subject to the rights of suit
or appeal hereinafter provided, [the Joint Commissioner or the
Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be], shall have power to
inquire into and decide the following disputes and matters:-
(a) ...........
(b) whether a trustee holds or held office as a hereditary
trustee”
16. The reading of the above Section makes it clear that Joint
Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of HR & CE as the case may be
appointed under the HR & CE Act, is empowered to decide the question
whether the trustee of the temple holds or held the office as hereditary
trustees. He can only decide about the nature and character of the trusteeship
of the temple. In other words, the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.79 of 2017
confined to the question whether the trusteeship of the temple is hereditary or
non-hereditary. However, he is not competent authority to decide the question
who are all entitled to act as a hereditary trustees. The moment he decides the
office of the trusteeship of a particular temple is hereditary in nature his
jurisdiction ceases. He is not entitled to go into the further question who are
all the persons entitled to act as a hereditary trustees.
17. The Division Bench of this Court in a case law reported in 1968 (1)
MLJ 119 (A.Krishnaswami Raja vs. Krishna Raja) observed as follows:-
“The jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner under
Section 57(b) is confined to a decision whether a trustee holds
or held office as a hereditary trustee. In other words, the Deputy
Commissioner can only decide as to the status of the office of
the trusteeship, namely, whether it is hereditary. He is not
competent to go into the further question as to which of the
competing claimants is a hereditary trustee or whether both are
joint hereditary trustees. That is a matter not covered by Section
57 of the Act and has to be decided only by a separate suit.”
18. In the above said case law, the appellant therein filed an application
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.79 of 2017
under Section 57(b) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Act (XIX of 1951) before the Deputy Commissioner of HR and
CE. He held that the appellant therein was the sole hereditary trustee of the
temple in question. The said order was challenged by the 1 st respondent
therein by filing an appeal before the Commissioner and the Commissioner
allowed his appeal and set aside the order passed by the Deputy
Commissioner. The order passed by the Commissioner in appeal was
challenged by the appellant therein by way of statutory suit under Section 62
of the said Act. The Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.Veeraswami speaking for the
Division Bench of this Court observed that the jurisdiction of the Deputy
Commissioner under Section 57(b) of the Madras Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (which was pari materia equivalent to the
Section 63(b) of the present Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Act) is confined to a decision whether the trustee holds or held the office as a
hereditary trustee.
19. It was held that the Deputy Commissioner can only decide as to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.79 of 2017
status of the office of trustees viz., whether it is hereditary or not and he is not
competent to go into the further question as to which of the rival claimants is
hereditary trustee or whether both the claimants are joint hereditary trustees.
It was also held that the said question has to be decided only by a separate
suit.
20. The facts of the case dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court
in A.Krishnaswami Raja vs. Krishna Raja reported in 1968 (1) MLJ 119 was
identical similar to the facts of the present case. The similar view was
expressed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in a case law reported in
1971 (1) MLJ 358 (S.Rangayya Goundar vs. Karuppa Naicker). The
relevant observations of this Court is as follows:-
“7. In Velayudha Goundan v. Ponnuswami Udayar,
Somayya, J., had to consider the identical question, that if the
right of one set of villagers to conduct an Utsavam in a temple
against the opposition of another set of villagers, and the
learned Judge expressed that the right of an individual to
worship in a particular form as in the past is a civil right, that
he is entitled to the protection of the Court in exercise of that
right, that a suit by one set of villagers against the aggressive
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.79 of 2017
set of other villagers who' prevented the plaintiffs from
peacefully carrying on the proceedings and worship of a deity in
a temple does not fall within Section 73 of Madras Act II of
1927, and that as such a suit is maintainable in a civil Court for
a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from
interfering with the performance of the utsavam in the suit
temple. In Chinnathambi Mooppan v. Mamundi Mooppan,
Veeraswami, J., (as he then was) expressed while dealing with a
similar question that:
“the question, as is clear from the pleadings, is
confined to the rival claims, whether the office is vested in the
community of pallars or whether the first defendant is entitled to it as
of right. Where the controversy centers round as to which of the rival
claimants to the office is entitled to it, it squarely does not fall within
the ambit of Section 63(e).........”
In Krishnaswami Raja v. Krishna Raja, a Division Bench
of this Court had to consider the scope of a similar section,
Section 57 (b) of Madras Act XIX of 1951 wherein it was
observed:
“The jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner under
Section 57(b) is confined to a decision whether a trustee holds or held
office as a hereditary trustee. In other words, the Deputy
Commissioner can only decide as to the status of the office of the
trusteeship, namely, whether it is hereditary. He is not competent to
go into the further question as to which of the competing claimants is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.79 of 2017
a hereditary trustee or whether both are joint hereditary trustees. That
is a matter not covered by Section 57 of the Act and has to be decided
only by a separate suit.”
Thirumalaiswami Naicker v. Villagers of Kadambur, Athur
Taluk, is also a decision of a Bench wherein it has been
expressed:
“Under Section 9, Civil Procedure Code, a litigant
having a grievance of a civil nature has, independently of any statute,
a right to institute a suit in a civil Court under the provisions of the
Civil Procedure Code, unless cognisance of the suit is either expressly
or impliedly barred. If a suit is otherwise within the jurisdiction of the
civil Court the person who seeks to oust the jurisdiction of that Court
must affirmatively establish the bar, every presumption being in
favour of the jurisdiction of the Court. Exclusion of the jurisdiction of
a civil Court in a case where a person asserts a right and seeks
remedy cannot be readily inferred. Exclusion of the suit in question
from the cognisance of the Court must be either expressed or clearly
and necessarily implied. A reading of Section 93 shows that it does
not impose an absolute bar on the maintainability of a suit in a civil
Court. It provides, that a suit of the nature contemplated therein, can
be instituted only in conformity with the provisions of the Act. Clearly
a suit or other legal proceedings in respect of matters not
contemplated in the section can be instituted in the ordinary way.”
It is clear from the principles laid down in these latter
decisions that the relief claimed in the suit will not fall within
the purview of Section 63 of the Act and as such the bar under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.79 of 2017
Section 108 will not apply. For the same reason the orders
passed in O.A. No. 79 of 1964 and O.A.No.78 of 1964 holding
that the applications are not maintainable cannot also bar the
suit (under Section 70 of the Act. As already stated the question
here is not as to whether the office of the trusteeship in the suit
temple is hereditary or not. Both the plaintiffs and defendants
claim that they are entitled to be trustees of the temple and claim
to have exercised their right hereditarily. Hence the substantial
dispute between the parties is as to which of them are the
persons entitled to be in management of the temple. The dispute
centres round as to which of the rival claimants is entitled to
celebrate the annual festival and such a dispute cannot fall
within the ambit of Section 63.”
21. If there are rival claimants to the office of the hereditary
trusteeship, Civil Court alone is entitled to decide the rival claims and it is not
within the domain of the statutory authorities constituted under the Tamil
Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 to decide the
said question.
22. In the case on hand, the deceased 1st appellant and 3 other persons
under whom the 2nd to 5th appellants are claiming trusteeship filed an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.79 of 2017
application before the Deputy Commissioner of HR and CE under Section
63(b) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act,
1959 in O.A.No.254 of 1987 and got an order that they were holding office of
the trusteeship of the temple in question as hereditary trustees. The 1 st and 2nd
respondents were not made as a party to the said application.
23. Admittedly, the appellants and the 1st and 2nd respondents are
descendants of Mattukaran @ Kali Goundar and his brother Chinna Goundar.
It is also not in dispute that the hereditary trusteeship of the temple was held
by the said Mattukaran @ Kali Goundar and his brother Chinna Goundar and
their ancestors. Therefore, any order obtained by the deceased 1st appellant
and other applicants in O.A.No.254 of 1987 without impleading the 1st and
2nd respondents who are all descendants of the very same family will not bind
them or affect their right to hereditary trusteeship. On the other hand, the
benefit of that order declaring trusteeship of the temple as hereditary, will
enure to them. Under Ex.A2 it was declared by Deputy Commissioner that
deceased 1st appellant and other applicants in O.A.No.254 of 1987 held the
office as hereditary trustees. Therefore, the hereditary nature of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.79 of 2017
trusteeship of the temple was determined by the Deputy Commissioner and he
was competent to decide the same. However, the said statutory authority is
not entitled to go further and to decide who are all entitled to hold the office
of the hereditary trusteeship. Since the application was filed by the deceased
1st appellant and other applicants before the Deputy Commissioner without
impleading other descendants of the family, the authority concerned in its
order declared that those applicants were holding the office of trusteeship as
hereditary trustees. It does not mean other descendants of the family are not
entitled to hereditary trusteeship. If the other descendants of the family makes
a rightful claim for hereditary trusteeship, then there exist a rival claim to the
office of hereditary trusteeship and consequently, the said question cannot be
gone into by the statutory authority and it will fall within the jurisdiction of
the Civil Court. Because the right to hereditary trusteeship of a temple
depends on a civil status of a person (i.e. descendants of a common ancestor
who held the office of hereditary trusteeship). He acquires the right to
administer the temple as hereditary trustee by virtue of his birth in the family
of aforesaid Mattukaran @ Kali Goundar and his brother Chinna Goundar.
The said civil status of a person can never be decided by the statutory
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.79 of 2017
authorities constituted under the HR & CE Act. Therefore, I have no
hesitation in holding that the present suit filed by the 1 st and 2nd respondents
for a declaration that they are joint hereditary trustees along with appellants 1
to 5 is very much maintainable before the Civil Court.
24. Though the present suit was stated to be filed under Order 7 Rule 1
to 6 read with Section 70 of the HR & CE Act, the perusal of the averments
and relief sought for in the suit would make it clear that it is a suit for
declaration of civil status of the person to act as a hereditary trustee and
hence, it cannot be termed as a statutory suit filed under the Section 70 of the
Act.
25. It is settled law quoting a wrong provision will never coming in the
way of deciding the substantial rights of the parties. Further, there is no need
for the 1st and 2nd respondents to challenge the order passed by the Deputy
Commissioner in the sense they accept the order in so far as it declares the
office of trusteeship of the temple is hereditary. As far as the rival claim of
the 1st and 2nd respondents for the office of the trusteeship is concerned, in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.79 of 2017
view of my discussions earlier, it is exclusively within the domain of the Civil
Court. Therefore, I concur with the findings of the Trial Court that the civil
suit is maintainable.
26. The learned counsel for the appellant by relying on the judgement
reported in 2013 (3) MWN (Civil) 35 (R.Balasundaram vs. M.Ramalingam)
submitted that the suit filed by the 1st and 2nd respondents is hit by Section
108 of HR & CE Act. In the aforesaid decision relied on by the learned
counsel for the appellants, the plaintiff therein filed a suit for declaration that
he was the hereditary trustee of the temple on a specific pleading that his
father established the temple and acted as a trustee and managed the property.
It was factually held in that case, plaintiff therein failed to substantiate the
plea that the temple was established by his father and consequently it was
held the plaintiff therein was not entitled to declaration he sought for. When a
plea was raised before the Appellate Court that plaintiff was entitled to a
lessor relief of declaration that he was entitled to act as hereditary trustees
along with defendant therein, this Court held that in view of the fact
defendant already obtained an order from Deputy Commissioner, the plaintiff
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.79 of 2017
was not entitled to maintain a suit. The fact of the present case on hand is
completely different.
27. In this case, both the parties admits that they are descendants of
Mattukaran @ Kali Goundar and his brother Chinna Goundar. Some of their
descendants filed an application before the statutory authority and obtained a
declaration that they held office as hereditary trustees. Now, other
descendants who are not party to the proceedings before the statutory
authorities wants a declaration that they are also entitled to act as hereditary
trustees along with the persons who obtained an order before the statutory
authorities regarding hereditary nature of the trusteeship.
28. When the entitlement of the 1st and 2nd respondents/plaintiffs to act
as joint hereditary trusteeship is resisted by the appellants 1 to 5, it becomes a
rival claims to the office of hereditary trusteeship and hence, as
authoritatively held by the Division Bench of this Court in 1968 (1) MLJ
119 (A.Krishnaswami Raja vs. Krishna Raja), the question falls within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The nature of the trusteeship of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.79 of 2017
temple is already declared as hereditary by the statutory authority. Now, the
only question to be decided by the Civil Court is whether the plaintiff in the
present suit are entitled to act as hereditary trustees along with the
defendants. The said rival claims set up by the plaintiffs based on his civil
status has be to be decided only by the Civil Court. Therefore, I hold that the
main controversy involved in the suit which is relating to the civil status is
not within the exclusive domain of the statutory authorities under the HR &
CE Act and therefore, the bar created under Section 108 of HR & CE Act is
not at all attracted.
29. Coming to the factual scenario, the 1st and 2nd respondents/plaintiffs
side witnesses PW.1 to PW.5 deposed about the involvement of the 1st and 2nd
respondents in the administration of the temple. The deceased 1st appellant/1st
defendant was examined as DW.1. In his cross examination, he admitted that
the decendant of Chinnaiyan and the 1st and 2nd respondents are heirs of
Nallan @ Rangasamy mentioned in his O.A.No.254 of 1987. He also
admitted that Mattukaran @ Kali Goundar administered the temple along
with his father Chinnaiyan. The vernacular portions of his admissions are as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.79 of 2017
follows:-
“...... ...... ...... ......
ehd; rpd;idad; tHp FLk;gj;jpy; te;jth;/
...... ...... ...... ......s
me;j X/V/? y; brhy;yg;gl;Ls;s ey;yhd; (v) u';frhkpapd;
thhpRfs; jhd; ,e;j tHf;fpd; kDjhuh; vd;why; rhpjhd;/ X/V/kDtpy;
khl;Lf;fhud; vd;Dila ghl;ldhh; rpdd ; aDod; nrh;e;J nfhapy; g{ir
kw;Wk; epht; hfk; bra;J te;jhh; vd;gij xg;g[f; bfhs;fpnwd;/”
30. The above admission of DW.1 read along with genealogy tree
would make it clear that Mattukaran @ Kali Goundar and his brother Chinna
Goundar administered the temple and the 1st appellant and other applicants in
O.A.No.254 of 1987 are descendants of Chinna Goundar and this respondents
1 and 2 are descendants of Nallan @ Rangasamy s/o Mattukaran @ Kali
Goundar. Therefore, it is clear that both the plaintiffs and defendants are
descendants of common ancestors who held the trusteeship of the temple in
question.
31. Now, under Ex.A2 the nature of the trusteeship of temple is held to
be hereditary by the statutory authority. Some of the descendants of aforesaid
common ancestors viz., 1st and 2nd respondents claim they are also entitled to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.79 of 2017
act as a hereditary trustees by virtue of the declaration granted under Ex.A2
with regard to the nature of trusteeship. Therefore, the claim made by the 1 st
and 2nd respondents seeking declaration that they are entitled to act as
hereditary trustees along with the 1st to 5th appellants stands proved by very
admission of DW.1.
32. In view of the discussions earlier, I do not find anything to interfere
with the conclusions reached by the Trial Court.
In nutshell :
(i) The First Appeal stands dismissed.
(ii) However, by taking into consideration the relationship of the parties,
there shall be no order as to costs.
(iii) Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition if any closed.
2.11.2022
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
dm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.79 of 2017
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
dm
To
1.The Subordinate Judge,
Uthangarai.
2.The Joint Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Sri Kottaimariamman Koil Mandapam
Salem.
A.S.No.79 of 2017
2.11.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
