The Deputy Commissioner lacks jurisdiction to modify a scheme settled by the Court under Section 64(5) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Act XXII of 1959 unless the conditions and restrictions subject to which the Deputy Commissioner can exercise his powers have been prescribed.

G. Maheswaran, J.

1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. The plaint averments are : The suit temple Sri Kailasanatha Swami and Nithyakalyani Amman Devasthanam at Ilayathankudi is a temple founded by the Nagarathars belonging to the Uyathankudi sect of Nattukottai Chettiar community. It was managed by the Nagarathars themselves by people nominated by the Karaikar's family and by other sub-divisions of Nagarathar community. A suit was filed in the Sub-Court, Ramanathapuram at Madurai in O.S. No. 34 of 1912 for framing a scheme for management and finally this Court in A.S. No. 72 of 1923 settled a scheme of management under the Hindu Religious Endowments Act. In the year 1964, the Deputy Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Madurai, initiated proceedings under Section 64(5) of Tamil Nadu Act XXII of 1959, for the modification of the scheme settled by the High Court and issued" notice to the Nagarathars to show cause why the scheme settled by the High Court cannot be modified in accordance with the draft scheme. An enquiry was made by the Deputy Commissioner in O.A. No. 4 of 1964 and he passed an order on 28th December, 1967, whereby the draft modified scheme was confirmed with certain modifications, but wholly changing the spirit of the original scheme by appointing an Executive Officer and vesting the properties of the temple with him and limiting the powers of the trustees. An appeal to the Commissioner proved fruitless and the modified scheme was confirmed with very slight alternations. The plaintiff contended that that order is not just and proper, that the administration of the temple was carried on efficiently and that there is no reason why an Executive Officer should be appointed. The appointment would not be in the, interest of the institution, nor will it be an improvement of the existing arrangement. The plaintiffs have therefore filed the suit to set aside the scheme framed by the Deputy Commissioner in modification of the original scheme framed by the High Court.

2. Defendants 1 and 2 submitted to a decree and the third defendant remained ex parte. The fourth defendant-Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department in his answer contended that the plaintiff-temple is a public temple and the Deputy Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department initiated proceedings suo motu under Section 64(5) of the Tamil Nadu Act XXII of 1959, for modifying the scheme and after an enquiry the Deputy Commissioner passed an order modifying the scheme and the appeal to the Commissioner was also dismissed making some alterations in the scheme and that the allegation that appointment of Executive Officer will amount to withdrawal of most of the management of the trustees is incorrect. The further contention is that it will be in the interest of the institution that a responsible officer of the Government as an Executive Officer is necessary, more particularly when the plaintiff temple is a wealthy temple deriving a good income, and that there are no grounds for cancellation of the order of the fourth defendant.

The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 28th December, 1967 in O.A. No. 4 of 1964 and the order of the Commissioner 4th defendant dated 31st October, 1970 in A.P. No. 32 of 1968, are liable to he set aside?

(2) To what relief is the plaintiff entitled?

He came to the conclusion that the order of the Deputy Commissioner, evidenced by Exhibit A-4, and the order of the Commissioner, Exhibit A-5, are not liable to be set aside and that they have to be confirmed. In the end, he dismissed the suit with costs. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs have filed this appeal.

3. The suit temple was managed by the families of Ilayathankudi Kovil Nagarathars. A suit was filed on the file of the Sub-Court, Ramanathapuram at Madurai in O.S. No. 34 of 1912 by one Periannan Chetty for settling a scheme for management.