Judgment :-

S.B. Sinha, J.

1.1. Some of the defendants in the original suit, who purchased the suit property from the defendant Nos. 1-3, are before us questioning the judgment and order dated 25.4.1996 passed by a learned single Judge of the High Court in Appeal Suit No.396/2000 whereby and whereunder judgment and decree dated 12.07.2000 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Sivakasi in O.S. No.242 of 1999 was set aside.

2.2. Inter se relationship between the plaintiffs and the predecessor-in-interest of the original defendant Nos. 1-3 is not in dispute. It would appear from the following genealogical tree:

Muthuswamy Othuwar Seeni Othuwar Gnana Othuwar Muthuswamy Othuwar Kulanthaively Othuwar Seenia Pillai Gnanam Pillai Mariappa Pillai Shanmugam Pillai Muthuramalingam Pillai Ranthinam Ammal Gomathi Muniasamy Panchavarnam Visalakshi (1st Plaintiff) (4th Defendant) 2nd Plaintiff 3rd Plaintiff Ravindran Aathi Naryaanan Sreenivasan 1st Defendant 2nd Defendant 3rd Defendant

1.3. In 1963, one S. Muthuramalingam Pillai filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (Administration) Department, Madurai for declaring Sri Pazhikanjia Vinayagar Temple, Sivakasi is not a religious and charitable endowment within the meaning of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (for short `the 1959 Act) and that he is the hereditary trustee of the temple. Shri K. T. T. Ramalingam Chettiar was impleaded as respondent in the application.

2.4. The learned Deputy Commissioner framed the following issues: "(1) Whether the suit institution is not a religious institution?

.(2) Whether the petitioner is the hereditary trustee of the suit temple?

.(3) To what relief is the petitioner entitled?"

5. On the basis of the materials brought on record by the parties to the said proceeding, it was held: -

"I therefore find that the suit institution is not a religious institution falling within the scope of the act. I find on issue No.1 accordingly.

Item No.2: In view of the finding on Issue NO.1 it is not necessary to determine whether the petitioner is the hereditary trustee of the institution, as such this issue does not arise. I find accordingly on issue No.2.

Item No. 3: In view of the finding on issue No.1 it is declared that Sri Pazhikanjia Vinayagar temple is not a religious institution falling within the scope of the Act."

6. Feeling aggrieved by the afore-mentioned order, Shri K.T.T. Ramalingam Chettiar preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, which was marked as Appeal No.49/1965. By an order dated 13.12.1960, the Commissioner upheld the order of the Deputy Commissioner stating: -

"On a careful consideration of the entire evidence placed in this case, I am satisfied that the Deputy Commissioner has gone in great detail of the entire evidence placed in the matter and that he has come to the correct conclusion that the temple in question is a private temple of the respondent and his forefathers and that the claim of the appellant that it is a `temple as defined in Section 6(20) of the Act is unsustainable, but that it is not a `religious institution falling within the scope of Section 6(18) of the Act. I am, therefore, of the view that this appeal should fail and consequently, the same is dismissed."

2.7. Thereafter, Shri K.T.T. Ramalingam Chettiar filed a suit in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram in terms of Section 70 of the 1959 Act for grant of a declaration that the temple was a public temple and not a private one. Shri S. Muthuramalingam Pillai also filed a suit for recovery of possession of certain properties and damages against K.T.T. Ramalingam Chettiar which was marked as O.S. No.124/1969.

Having regard to the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Judge framed the following two sets of issues: -

"SET 1:

1.1. Whether the plaint mentioned temple is a public temple as denied in Madras Act 25 of 1959?

2.2. Whether the order in OA 37 of 1963 on the file of th