Ramaswami, J.- The two Letters Patent Appeals are against the Judgment of Ismail, J. disposing of A.A.O. No. 338 of 1965. The appellants in L.P.A. No. 31 of 1969 are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 359 of 1963 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Kumbakonam. The suit is for a declaration that the suit temple belonged to the members of Pattusaluvar community exclusively and that they alone own the temple and worship the deity of the temple and that nobody else had any right in the properties acquired for the said temple. There was also the prayer for accounting by defendants 1 and 2 who had been appointed as trustees for the temple by the Area Committee and approved by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. On the whole, there were six defendants in the suit. Defendants 1 to 3 were the trustees appointed for the temple. The fourth defendant is a lessee of the temple properties. The fifth defendant is the Area Committee and the sixth defendant is the Commissioner himself. One of the contentions raised by the defendants is that the suit is not maintainable in the civil Court inasmuch as the main question that falls for determination is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner under section 63 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act LII of 1959) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This contention was upheld by the trial Court and the suit was dismissed. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the learned Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam held that the question that arises in the suit is whether the temple is a denominational temple or not, that that question is not one coming under section 63 of the Act, that therefore the jurisdiction of the civil Court is not ousted and that the trial Court should decide the suit on merits. The learned Subordinate Judge remanded the suit for trial on other issues. The contesting defendants filed A.A.O. No. 338 of 1965 against the abovesaid remand order and Ismail, J., reversed the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge holding that the question relating to the nature of the institution is one coming under section 63 of the Act and that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to go into that question. He therefore held that the learned Subordinate Judge ought not to have remanded the suit for trial on other issues. However, the learned Judge further held that there is no bar for the civil Court to go into the claim of accounting that is prayed for in the suit. The learned Judge upheld the order of remand by the learned Subordinate Judge to the extent of the claim relating to accounting. L.P.A. No. 31 of 1969 has been filed by the plaintiffs challenging the decision of the learned Judge regarding the question of maintainability of the suit in the civil Court. The contesting defendants have filed L.P.A. No. 58 of 1968 challenging the further finding of the learned Judge that the civil Court can decide the question of accounting by defendants 1 and 2.

2. It is not disputed before us that if the substantial question to be decided in the suit is as to whether the temple is a denominational one or not, the jurisdiction of the civil Court could not be ousted under the provisions of the Act. Under section 63 of the Act though the Deputy Commissioner is given the exclusive jurisdiction to decide as to whether any institution is a religious institution or not, the question whether a temple is a denominational temple coming under Article 26 of the Constitution is certainly not within his jurisdiction. That is a question which has necessarily to be decided by the civil Court. It has been so held in Dr. Ananda Baliga v. Ananteswar Temple1. The learned Judge who disposed of C. M. A. No. 338 of 1965 also recognises this position. His judgment is reported in Santhana Gopala Chettiar v. Seetharama Chettiar2. At page 45, the learned Judge observes thus:

“ Whether the respondents will be entitled to file a suit in a civil

Click Here to Read the rest of this document