P.D.Dinakaran, J.: The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 4.3.1982 of the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem made in O.S.No.86 of 1979 laid by the plaintiff/first respondent herein to set aside the order of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department/appellant herein dated 23.3.1978 made in A.P.No.63 of 1977 confirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department dated 21.1.1977 made in O.A.No.86 of 1974.

2.1. In nutshell, the plaintiff/first respondent herein raised a dispute before the Deputy Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department in O.A.No.86 of 1974 under Sec.63(b) of the Tamilnadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming that he is a hereditary Trustee of the Sri Lakshminarayana temple situated at Samudram Village, Sankari Taluk.

2.2. According to the plaintiff/first respondent herein, the said temple is an ancient public one, to which the properties have been endowed as devadayam for its upkeeping and maintenance by the ancient kings. The endowment was confirmed in the name of the deity in the Inam register. One Swami Iyengar was the last Archakar-cum-trustee. As he had no issues, the said Swami Iyengar adopted the plaintiff/first respondent herein as an adopted son and thus the plaintiff/first respondent held both the office of the hereditary Trustee as well as the hereditary Archakar.

2.3. The temple being a small public temple, its affairs were managed with the meagre income of the temple properties as well as the offerings by the plaintiff/ first respondent and their predecessors-in-interest and accordingly, the plaintiff/first respondent herein claimed that he is a hereditary Trustee of the said temple.

2.4. However, both the Deputy Commissioner/Original Authority who exercised the power conferred under Sec.63(b) of the Act, vide order dated 21.1.1977 made in O.A.No.86 of 1974, as well as the Commissioner/Appellate Authority (appellant herein), vide order dated 23.3.1978 made in A.P.No.63 of 1977 rejected the plea of the plaintiff/first respondent herein and refused to accept that the plaintiff/first respondent herein is a hereditary Trustee, disputing the adoption of the plaintiff/first respondent herein by Swami Iyengar and also denying the genealogical table. Hence, the above suit.

2.5. Before the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem, the following issues were framed and tried, viz.,

(i) Is the plaintiff the hereditary Trustee of Sri Lakshminarayana Temple at Samduram Village, Sankari Taluk? and

(ii) Is the order of the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. and C.E., Coimbatore passed in O.S.86 of 1974 and later on confirmed by the Commissioner, H.R. And C.E., Madras in A.P.No.63 of 1977 liable to be set aside?

2.6.1. Substantiating the above issues, the plaintiff/first respondent herein marked 29 documents (Exs.A-1 to A-29).

2.6.2. The order of the first defendant/appellant herein dated 23.3.1978 made in A.P.No.63 of 1977 was marked as Ex.A-1.

2.6.3. Exs.A-7 (Certified copy of plaint in O.S.No.824 of 1956 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Salem dated 3.8.1986), Ex.A-9 (Certified copy of the extract of the Settlement Register issued by the Deputy Collector, Salem to the plaintiff/first respondent herein), and Ex.A-15 (Certified copy of the judgment dated 22.8.1975 made in O.S.No.436 of 1974 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Salem), were marked to prove that the plaintiff/first respondent herein was continuously acting as a Trustee and managing the properties of the temple.

2.6.4. That apart, the plaintiff/first respondent herein also marked Exs.A-11 and A-12 (Kist receipt book issued for the suit temple), Exs.A-13 and A-14 (Extracts from the tenancy registry of the suit land), Ex.A-19 (Patta book in favour of the deity), Exs.A-21 to A-26 (receipts for the payment of contribution issued to the suit temple), and Exs.A-27 and A-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document