Hereditary trusteeship can be established by showing that members of a family have exercised such trusteeship of a particular temple for a long number of years, and the Inam Fair Register and Register of Properties approved by the Department are important evidence in determining hereditary trusteeship.

AR. LAKSHMANAN, J.

This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of M. Srinivasan, J. as he then was, dated 22-11-1991 in A. S. No. 960 of 1986 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge. Namakkal, in O.S. No. 47 of 1984. The plaintiff is the appellant herein.

2. The case of the appellant in short is as follows:-- Arulmighu Angalamman Temple in S. Palayapalayam is her family temple and Arulmighu Angalamman is their family deity. The suit temple has been in the management of herself and her ancestors for over hundred years or three generations and none outside the family had ever managed the affairs of the temple. One Marutha Pillai alias Muthu Pillai and his brother Kappa Pillai were the trustees. Before them, their ancestors were the trustees. In the line of succession to trusteeship, after Marutha Pillai and Kappa Pillai, Veerabadra Pillai son of Marutha Pillai, and Kandaswami and Karuppa Pillai, sons of Kappa Pillai became the trustees, having inherited the said office. On 9-5-1981, Veerabadra Pillai executed a deed of gift endowing valuable item of agricultural lands on his family deity and putting the same in the possession of the then trustee. Thereafter, the trusteeship came to vest in the branch of Marudha Pillai alias Mithu Pillai. Vcerahadra Pillais son Ramalingam Pillai and after him, his sons Manickam Pillai and Rathinam Pillai were trustees. Rathinam Pillai died without any heirs.

3. On the death of the parents of the appellant, she became the trustee of the temple and she inherited the office. She is managing the affairs of the temple with the assistance of her husband. The management of the temple was in the family of the appellant for over a century and no one outside the appellant's family had control over the administration of the temple at any time. There is no bar or impediment for the appellant functioning as the trustee. She is also not barred from managing the temple as trustee by reason of being a woman. The religious duties are being performed by the Poojaries, and they ore enjoying the lands of the temple in liea of their salary. The temple is electrified and the cost of the sane was met by the appellant's family. The current consumption charges arc being paid by the Poojaries from out of the income derived by them front the temple lands.

4. While so, the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department. called for applications for appointment of non-hereditary trustees. The appellant along with her husband filed O.A. No. 84 of 1981 before the Deputy Commissioner. H.R. and C.E. Department, Coimbatore, under Section 63(b) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to declare them as hereditary trustees. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the said petition on 10-2-1983. He rejected the appellant's claim on the flimsy ground that the Inam Fair Register was not produced. The appellant filed an appeal to the Ist respondent in A. P. No. 10 of 1983. The 1st respondent dismissed the appeal on 21-11-1983. Therefore, the appellant filed the suit O.S. No. 47 of 1984 seeking a declaration that she is the hereditary trustee of Arulmighu Angalamman Temple at S. Palayapalayam and for a permanent injunction restraining the lst respondent from appointing non-hereditary trustee or otherwise intefering, with or disturbing the appellant's right as the hereditary trustee of the suit temple

5. The suit was resisted by the 1st respondent. It is the case of the Department that to claim the right of hereditary trusteeship the appellant has to establish three factors, viz., succession to such office must be a hereditary one; it must be regulated by usage; and it must he specifically provided for by the founder of the temple. None of these three facto exists to claim the office of hereditary trusteeship by the appellant. It is incorrect to state that the management of the temple was with the members