Meaning of Denominational temple noticed.

Defendants are the appellants.

2. The case of the plaintiffs is as follows:

Arulmigu Mariamman Temple situate in Kosavampatty Village, Namakkal Taluk, Salem District was founded by the Kavarai Chettiars of that village. The temple was managed exclusively by them and festivals were also conducted by that community people alone. There are Vinayagar temple, Perumal temple, Madeswaran temple and Navagraham temple. The temple land for the temple was donated by the persons who hail from Kavarai Chettiar Community of that village. The land was surrounded by houses. The community people applied for sanction to auction the property and it was auctioned for Rs.17,100 and it is in deposit and the interest is spent for the maintenance of the temple. The Endowment Board also appointed trustees from the said community alone as selected by the said community of the village from 1965 onwards. The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Salem appointed trustees from the said community as selected by that community people. So, the temple exclusively belongs to and is managed by the Kavarai Chettiar Community. The plaintiffs belong to Kavarai Chettiar Community and they are at present the elected trustees of the temple and they are regular worshippers of the temple. In the year 1975, the community renovated all the temples and did Kumbahishekam. The plaintiffs understand that proceedings are being taken for appointing the trustees for all the temples in the District. If any such action is taken, the right of the community will be affected. Hence, they filed petition under Sec.64 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act before the Deputy Commissioner for framing a scheme for making appointment of trustees only from the community of Kosavampatty village. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the petition. The plaintiffs preferred appeal before the Commissioner and the Commissioner, without considering the merits of the case dismissed the appeal by an order dated 14. 1983 and that order is erroneous and it is liable to be set aside. The second defendant had appointed the third defendant as the trustee for the temple from the community. Hence, the suit is filed by the plaintiffs to set aside the order of the first defendant and declare that the suit temple exclusively belongs to and managed by the Kavarai Chettiar Community of Kosavampatty village.

.3. Thedefendants filed written statement contending as follows:

.The suit temple and other temples attached to the suit temple were not exclusively managed by the Kavarai Chettiars of Kosavampatty village. There is no documentary evidence to substantiate the claim of the plaintiffs that the suit temple was founded by the members of the said community for their benefit. The plaintiff community people along were not worshipping in the suit temple. The plaintiffs did not prove that the temple was constructed only by Kavarai Chettiar Community. The claim of the plaintiffs was correctly dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner which was confirmed by the Commissioner. The order passed by the Commissioner is legal and valid and it is not liable to be set aside. The suit temple is a public temple and the department has got every right to exercise its control over the temple. It is a religious institution as defined under the Act and it does not belong to the members of the Kavarai Chettiar Community.

4. The suit was tried by the Sub Judge, Namakkal and it was decreed declaring that the suit temple is a denominational temple belonging to Kavarai Chettiar Community of Kosavampatty village and the Kavarai Chettiar Community people have got exclusive right to manage the affairs of the temple accordingly and thus set aside the order of the first defendant.

5. As against that judgment and decree, the present appeal is filed by the defendants.

6. Point for consideration is whether the suit temple is a temple exclusively belong to Kavarai Chettiar of Kosavampatty village and