Disputes over hereditary trusteeship of a religious institution fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 63 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, and suits in respect of such disputes are barred by Section 108 of the Act.

PALANISWAMY, J. :- This appeal filed by the plaintiffs raises the question as to the scope of Section 63 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The plaintiffs and defendants 3 and 4 are the descendants of one Chinna Ramanuja Aiyangar. The suit was laid for recovery of possession of the plaint mentioned temple called Sri Venugopalasami temple, Katteri, Mannargudi, and the immoveable properties described in the plaint. Reliefs were sought against defendants 1 and 2 on behalf of the plaintiff and defendants 3 and 4. The plaintiffs alleged that the lands described in the plaint belonged to the suit temple and that they and defendants 3 and 4 were the sole hereditary trustees thereof. They referred to several litigations in their family with regard to the affairs of the temple and stated that with a view to enable the members to reach an amicable arrangement and settlement of disputes between them, the members of the family were advised to appoint an agent to look after the temple and its management. According to them, all the members of the family had confidence in one Ranganatha Aiyangar, father of the second defendant and natural paternal uncle of the first defendant. The plaint alleges that the said Ranganatha Aiyangar was, in or about October, 1926, requested to look after the temple and the properties and manage them on behalf of the members of the family of the plaintiffs till the hereditary trustees came to an amicable arrangement amongst themselves about the management thereof. Ranganatha Aiyangar is alleged to have taken possession of the temple and its properties in pursuance of the alleged request and was said to be functioning as an agent in pursuance of a deed of agency executed on 28-10-1926. According to the plaintiffs, Ranganatha lyengar was in possession of the temple and its properties only on behalf of the members of the plaintiffs' family.

The plaint proceeds to refer to certain litigations between several members of the plaintiffs' family and states that the hereditary trustees could not come to any arrangement, and, therefore, the second defendant was requested to look after the temple and its properties after the death of Ranganatha lyengar. It is further alleged in the plaint that as the second defendant expressed his inability to look after the temple and its properties, fathers of the plaintiffs 4 and 5 requested the first defendant in about 1957-58 to look after the affairs of the temple and its properties on behalf of the hereditary trustee in the place of the second defendant and that the first defendant accordingly assumed management and has been functioning as such agent eversince. The plaintiff claimed to have issued a notice to the first defendant on 10-2-1962 terminating the agency and calling upon him to deliver possession of the temple and the properties. Reference is made in the plaint to the reply sent by the first defendant in which the first defendant put forward the contention that neither the plaintiff nor defendants 3 and 4 were hereditary trustees of the temple, that the properties mentioned in the plaint were kattalai properties constituting a specific endowment for the purpose of performing certain services connected with the temple of Sri Venugopalaswami, and that the lands were endowed by the mirasdars as a specific endowment by a document of the year 1861. Reference is also made to the allegation of the first defendant that the father of the second defendant was in possession and management of the temple as kattalai trustee and not as the agent of the plaintiffs. Various other allegations made by the first defendant denying the right of the plaintiffs to institute the suit are also referred to in the plaint. According to the plaintiffs, the said allegations of the first defendant are untenable. With these allegations, the plaintiffs have prayed for recovery of possession of the temple and its properties from d