1. Petitioner in O.P.No.32886 of 2002 is a member of Elayakorambu Mana of Payyallur village, Kollengode taluk in Palakkad district. Sree Kuruvambalam Siva temple is an ancient temple situated at Kuruvambalam, Perinthalmanna taluk in Malappuram district. The temple was owned by four Namboodiri families and they are trustees of the temple from time immemorial. The temple is a public religious institution coming under the purview of Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. Day to day administration of the temple is vested in a Board of Trustees consist of both hereditary and non hereditary trustees.

2. Petitioner is a member of Elayakorambu Mana. Members of Moothakorambu Mana, Pulikkezhu Illom and Attayoor Mana are the other three non hereditary trustees of the temple. Petitioner has approached this court seeking a direction to the respondents to allow him to continue as member of the Board of Trustees of the temple. Consequent on the death of Karunakaran Nambiar, who was holding the post of Chairman of the Board of Trustees, election to the post of Chairman has become necessary. Petitioner and other two hereditary trustees then made enquiries and they came to know that the petitioner was not included as a member of the Trustee Board and the constitution of the Trustee Board consisted of two hereditary trustees and three non hereditary trustees. Petitioner noticed that Elayakorambu Mana in which petitioner is the eldest member was illegally dropped from the Trustee Board. On enquiry he came to know that second respondent had taken a decision on 29.6.1994 by which he had appointed three non hereditary trustees for a period of five years, exercising the powers conferred under S.41 of the H.R. & C.E. Act. Ext. P1 order was issued by the second respondent indicating that there would be three non hereditary trustees and two hereditary trustees.

3. Petitioner was unaware of the said proceedings since no copy of the proceeding was served on him. Petitioner then sent a lawyer notice dated 11.10.2002 to the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Kozhikode. He took strong exception to the manner in which Ext. P1 order was issued by the second respondent. It was pointed out that non inclusion of a hereditary trustee in the Trustee Board was illegal and sought for immediate induction in the Trustee Board. Copy of the lawyer notice was sent to the second respondent. They reminded the Commissioner that the trusteeship exists to their families from time immemorial and the Devaswom or the Area Committee has no power to deny the right and found that the decision taken by the Trustee Board excluding the petitioner is illegal and liable to be reversed. Though Ext.P3 notice was sent by all the hereditary trustees no action was taken.

4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the second respondent. It is stated that two hereditary trustees and three non hereditary trustees are proposed to be appointed by the Area Committee, Palakkad. Further it is pointed out that the term of appointment of non hereditary trustees under Ext. P1 has expired and the challenge against Ext.P1 cannot stand. It is stated that if the case of the petitioner is that his family has got hereditary rights, he has to establish the same before the Deputy Commissioner under S.57(b) of the Act. Therefore it is submitted that the Original Petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Petitioner filed reply affidavit producing three documents. Ext.P4 is photo copy of the register dated 27.11.1903 of the Joint Pattadar of Valluvanadu taluk maintained in the erstwhile Malabar district which would prove the fact that the trustee of Kuruvambalam Devaswom as recognised by the then Government are (i) Pulikkizhu Thrivikraman Namboodiri, (ii) Moothakurambil Narayanan Namboodiri,

(iii) Ilayakkurambil Raman Namboothiri and (iv) Attayoor Agnitrathan Namboodiri. It is stated that Attayoor family does not exist for the last 50 years and the third family referred to in Ext.P4 i