The court held that the plaintiff was not obligated to approach the Government under S.6 of the Act as the Act did not apply to the nature of the reliefs sought. The court found that the Act did not provide any obligation for the plaintiff to approach the Government under S.6 and that the nature of the suit was beyond the purview of the Act.

C.A. Vaidialingam, J.

1. On behalf of the appellant, Mr. T. S. Krishnamoorthi Iyer, his learned counsel, challenges the decree of the learned Additional District Judge of Parur dismissing the suit instituted by the plaintiff, on a preliminary finding that the suit is not how maintainable without the plaintiff approaching the Government under S.6 of the Travancore-Cochin Temple Entry (Removal of Disabilities) Act, XXVII of 1950.

2. The various other contentions raised by the parties, and which are the subject matter of the several issues, have not been adjudicated upon by the learned Additional District Judge.

3. The suit itself was for a declaration that the plaint schedule temples are the private temples belonging to the plaintiff's family and that right of worship in those temples is exclusively confined to the members of the family of the plaintiff and of the Adaat Illom and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, members of the Hindu Community whom they represent, from forcibly entering into the plaint schedule temples and the premises on which they stand and offering worship therein. There are certain other incidental reliefs asked for which I will advert to when I discuss the contentions of the learned counsel on both sides. The main allegations in the plaint are that the suit temples were the private temples of the Adaat Illom and that the plaintiff's" tarwad has acquired full rights in the said temples by virtue of an udampadi executed by the members of the Adaat Illom on 19-12-1113 in favour of one Sankara Warrier, the then karnavan of the plaintiff's tarwad. It is also stated that during the long period that has elapsed, these temples have remained as exclusive places of worship only of the members of the family of the plaintiff and those of the Adaat Illom.

4. In particular it is alleged in the plaint that no member of the Hindu community has a right of worship in any of the plaint temples nor has such a right been claimed or exercised by anybody and that these temples have remained as private temples and not as places of public worship. There are certain other allegations to the effect that neither the Government of the State nor the Hindu community had at any time anything to do with these institutions or their management. It is also alleged that recently the defendants and a large number of the members of the Hindu community contend that the plaint temples are not the private temples belonging to the tarwad of the plaintiff, but are public temples where every member of the Hindu community has a right to enter and worship. It is further mentioned in paragraph 15 of the plaint that the plaintiff has moved the State Government under S.6 of the Travancore-Cochin Temple Entry (Removal of Disabilities) Act, XXVII of 1950. It is also alleged by the plaintiff that the defendants and some members of the Hindu community nave trespassed in the Valampur temple and have offered worship on 28-4-1952 and according to the plaintiff such entry on the part of these defendants is unauthorised because neither the defendants nor any other member of the Hindu Community have got such a right and that the case of the defendants and other Hindus is stated to be an invasion into the plaintiff's private right to the institution. The substantial reliefs that are asked for by the plaintiff have been referred to at the beginning of this judgment.

5. The number of defendants which originally was seven now has swelled to as many as 87 and there is no controversy that the suit now proceeds on the basis that the defendants represent the Hindu community and it is a representative action that they are righting. From the written statements filed by the parties, it is clear that they are challenging the rights of the plaintiff to private ownership or for asking for any relief regarding their exclusive rights in the properties. The general allegations in the written statement are to the effect that the temples are public temples, and