Issuance of notice is mandatory.

Kader, J.

1. The appeal is against the judgment and decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tirunelveli in O.S.No. 66 of 1977. The second defendant therein is the appellant.

2. This is a representative action by the two plaintiffs on their behalf and on behalf of the other members of the Brahmin community of Naranammalpuram in Tirunelveli Taluk for a declaration that Sri Karpaga Vinayagar temple of Naranammalpuram is a denominational institution belonging to the Brahmin community of Naranammalpuram consisting of sixty families and for a consequential injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner interfering with the management of the said temple and its properties by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are the nominated representatives of the Brahmin community of Naranammalpuram consisting of sixty families nominated to manage and administer the affairs of Sri Karpaga Vinayagar temple of the village. The said temple was founded by the ancestors of the Brahmin community of the said village over a century ago for the spiritual welfare of the said Brahmin community and the members of the community are the worshippers. For the religious services and other functions connected with the temple, the schedule properties have been endowed and as the income from the properties is hardly sufficient to meet the expenses, the members of the Brahmin community of the village are contributing liberally. The plaintiffs learnt that the first defendant has been appointed as the fit person under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act of 1959 in respect of Sri Venkateswara Perumal temple and Sri Viswanathaswamy and Rudrapa-theeswarar temples of Naranammalpuram after the removal of the trustees. The above said suit temples have nothing to do with Sri Karpaga Vinayagar temple which belongs to the Brahmin community. The first defendant is falsely claiming as the fit person of Sri Karpaga Vinayagar temple also and is trying to interfere with the possession and management of the temple and its properties. Hence the suit in a representative capacity on behalf of the members of the Brahmin community of Naranammalpuram for the aforesaid reliefs.

3. The first defendant raised the following contentions: He is the fit person appointed not only for Sri Venkateswara Perumal temple and Viswanathaswamy and Rudrapatheeswarar temples but also for the plaint Sri Karpaga Vinayagar temple. The said Karpaga Vinayagar temple is not exclusively owned by the Brahmin community as claimed in the plaint. One Sankararaman was the trustee and he has handed over all the properties including the suit property to the first defendant who has been appointed as the fit person. The plaint Sri Karpaga Vinayagar temple is only a sub-temple of the other two temples and all these temples have been managed by a single trustee. The Brahmin community as such did not elect or appoint any trustee. The temple is owned by all the Villagers.

4. The second defendant-Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, who was subsequently impleaded at the instance of the first defendant has filed a separate written statement. He contended that Sri Karpaga Vinayagar temple is only a sub-temple of Sri Viswanathaswamy and a Rudrapatheeswarar and Venkatesa Perumal temples. There is only one archaka and single Madappalli. The archakar is paid jointly on behalf of these temples. The trustees of all the temples have given a statement surrendering possession. The first defendant is the fit person. The temple is not denominational in character and the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief claimed. It was also contented that the suit against the second defendant was bad for want of notice under Section 80, C.P.C.

5. On the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial:

1. Whether the plaintiffs are the duly nominated persons to manage and administer the affairs of the temples as alleged by them?

2. Whether the suit temple is a religious denomination