Ramaprasada Rao, J.- The unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S. No. 7 of 1966 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Judge, who did not agree that the suit temple was a private one, but in whose opinion it was a public temple. The relevant pleadings may be summarised. (2) Periaveettu Mudaliars about 1000 years ago founded two Siva temples one at Azhakiapandiapuram and the other at Aloor. The temple at Azhakiapandiapuram is known as Ambalathadu-var temple and the Aloor temple is popularly known as Chera Ghola Pandia Mahadevar temple. They were built on the sites belonging to the ancestors of the plaintiffs and were constructed with their private funds. 1 here is no evidence expressly as to dedication but from time immemorial these temples were recognised as the private temples of the Periaveettu Mudaliar family. It is claimed that the inscription in the Aloor temple, which is the subject matter of this litigation, bears ample proof as to the private nature of the temple. Reliance is also placed on a printed book Exhibit A-22 written by Tamil Vidwan Chidambara Kuttalam Pillai under the caption of Contemporary records but which are ancient, are also relied upon to show that the suit temple was built with private funds and was treated as such by the rulers of Travancore. Exhibit A-4 of the year 1896 is an order issued in the name of the Dewan. The proceedings obviously were initiated when a complaint was received about its mismanagement by the then trustees. The point however is that on the undertaking given by the then trustees to maintain the accounts and look after the temple affairs properly the complaint was dismissed ; but there is a recognition about the status of the temple as a private temple in this document. Long afterwards under Exhibit A-12 and in the year 1962 the Palace Officer of the Travancore Devaswom refers to the quondam grants given to this temple as a private temple but makes it clear that on and after the date of issue of Ex. A-12 such grants for all private temples including the suit Aloor temple were discontinued. Exhibit A-5 is a copy of the settlement register in Aloor Pakuthy showing that many of the suit properties stood in the name of the then trustees but for the benefit of the deities installed in the temple. There is no dispute that the temple was built on private land. Exhibit A-6 is also incidentally pressed into service which shows that three strangers also provided properties to the temple, but incidentally recogrised that it was a private temple. The temple was never dedicated to the public and the members of the public did not have access to the temple and wor-ship the deity therein as a matter of right nor did they claim any such right-in a legally conceivable manner. The plaintiffs themselves referred to a suit filed by the second plaintiff as O.S. No. 22 of 1962 on the file of the same Court for a declaration that the temple was a private one. Without going into the merits, but on the question whether the suit was maintainable the Court held against the second plaintiff in that suit, as the enquiry relating to the nature of an institution has to be decided by the statutory tribunal under the provisions the Tamil Nadu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. It is also claimed that an application was filed under the appropriate section before the appropriate authority contending that the suit temple in question was not a religious institution and that the plaintiffs held Office hereditarily.

The Deputy Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department Madurai, held the hereditary trusteeship right in favour of the plaintiffs, but held that the temple was a public religious institution. Thereafter, the further appeal by the plaintiffs to the Commissioner was dismissed and hence they had to file the present suit under section 70 of Tamil Nadu Act XXII of 1959.

3. The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Departme

Click Here to Read the rest of this document