Kailasam, J.- The plaintiff Sri Venkataramanaswami Deity at Kothur by Trustee K.R. Sanjeevi Chetty is the appellant in this Letters Patent Appeal. The plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration of the plaintiff’s title to the suit properties, for possession and for past and future mesne profits. According to the plaint, the suit properties originally belonged to one Nanjachari who dedicated them to the Deity and after Nanjachari’s death, the villagers were managing the properties. Subsequently, N.R. Sanjeevi Chetty was appointed trustee by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board. As the original deed of dedication was destroyed, the heirs of the grantor confirmed the factum of dedication by a registered deed in February, 1958. It was stated that the defendant got possession of the properties with the permission of the villagers on promise to pay rent, but she failed to pay rent and started asserting her own title to the suit properties. The suit was opposed by the defendant on the ground that the suit properties which belonged to Nanjachari and his sons, fell to the share of Krishnamachari son of Nanjachari at a family partition, and Krishnamachari’s son Ramalingachari sold the properties to the defendant in the year 1949. It was also contended by the defendant that she was in possession of the suit properties in her own right and has perfected title by adverse possession. The dedication to the temple and the documents relied on by the plaintiff were disputed. The defendant also raised the ground that the civil Court is barred from trying the suit by virtue of the provisions contained in the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (Tamil Nadu Act XIX of 1951) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Courts below and the learned Judge who heard the Second Appeal took the view that the suit is barred because of the provisions of sections 57 and 93 of the Act and dismissed the suit.

2. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the suit which is for a declaration of the plaintiff’s title to the suit properties, for possession and for past and future mesne profits is barred because of the provisions contained in the Act. The relevant provisions in the Act may be referred to. Section 57 of the Act runs as follows:-

"Section 57.- Subject to the rights of suit or appeal hereinafter provided, the Deputy Commissioner shall have power to inquire into and decide the following disputes and matters:-

(a) whether an institution is a religious endowment;

(b) whether a trustee holds or held office as a hereditary trustee;

(c) whether any property or money is a religious endowment;

(d) whether any property or money is a specific endowment;

(e) whether any person is entitled, by custom or otherwise, to any honour, emolument or perquisites in any religious institution and what the established usage of a religious institution is in regard to any other matter;

(f) whether any institution or endowment is wholly or partly of a religious or secular character; and whether any property or money has been given wholly or partly for religious or secular uses; and

(g) whether any property or money has been given for the support of an institution which is partly of a religious and partly of a secular character, or for the performance of any service or charity connected with such an institution or the performance of a charity which is partly of a religious and partly of a secular character or where any property or money given is appropriated partly to religious and partly to secular uses, as to what portion of such property or money shall be allocated to religious uses."

Section 61 provides that any party aggrieved by any order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under any of the provisions of Chapter V of the Act may appeal to the Commissioner. Section 62 provides that a party aggrieved by the order passed relating to any of the matters specified in section 57 may institute a suit in the Court against such a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document