Procedure prescribed under 01, Rule 8 IPC not followed.

This second appeal is canvassed against the decree and judgment rendered by the learned District Judge, Tirunelveli, in A.S.No.79 of 1981 on 38. 1981 whereby, he set aside the decree and judgment rendered by the trial court, the learned Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli made in O.S.No.86 of 1978 on 38. 1979, decreeing the suit which was filed by the appellant herein.

.2. The brief facts, which led to the second appeal, as culled out from the records, may be stated as follows:

.The appellant herein is the second plaintiff before the trial court and the suit was laid against the respondents herein, being the constituted authorities under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, praying for the declaration that the suit temple by name Mariamman temple is a denominational temple exclusively belonging to Keelatheru Yadavas of Mullaikulam and for permanent injunction restraining the Officers of the H.R. & C.E. Department, namely, the defendants from in any way interfering with the administration and management of the said temple in question. Claiming that the Mariamman temple in question was constructed about 150 years age by the ancestors of Keelatheru Yadhavas of Mullaikulam village, managed and administered with full control by the Yadhava Community people alone who were the residents nearby the temple and that as such, the other sect of Yadhavas and other community people have no right of worship or management of the temple, the relief aforesaid has been claimed by the plaintiffs herein and that apart, necessary poojas were being held and conducted by themselves. Valuable properties were gifted by them which are under the lock and key of Keelatheru Yadhavas. According to the plaintiffs they have been paying electricity charges for the temple out of the collections made exclusively from Keelatheru Yadhavas and the salary has been paid to the poojari of the temple out of the said collection. Festivals were conducted and performed by themselves exclusively alone. While that being so, a notification dated 3. 1978 by the respondent calling for application from the public for the appointment of trustees to the said temple as per the provisions of H.R. & C.E. Act 22 of 1959, on or before 33. 1978 was published. As the said temple was a denominational temple, the said Yadhavas of Mullaikulam did not make any application. Hence, they were constrained to file the suit.

.3. The suit was resisted by the respondents herein, by inter alia contending that since no statutory notice under Sec.80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was given to the defendants prior to the filing of the suit, it is not at all maintainable and liable to be dismissed in limine and that the suit temple was not a denominational temple but however a public temple being maintained and administered by the H.R. & C.E. Department and the deceased first plaintiff was appointed as one of the trustees of the said temple even in the year 1975 and after him one Vellaichamy was appointed as trustee and thereafter the notification was issued and for the said reason, the plaintiff cannot claim that he is the elected trustee of the Keelatheru Yadhavas. The defendant would further contend that the temple in question owned 32 cents of land which was originally a Zamin land in Thirumalai Naicken Pudukudi Mitta Estate and taken over by the Government subsequently on 1. 1951 with the survey taken place in the year 1955 and the pattadars of this extent of land were one Ramaswamy Konar, Sankarapandia Konar and others and out of the said pattadars, Ramiah Konar alone was a Yadhava and that the plaintiff cannot claim that the immovable property has been purchased from out of the collection made exclusively from Keelatheru Yadhavas. It was also contended that during the Panguni festival time, all the Hindus of the village will prepare Holy Pongal and offer it to the deity in question and by so pleading it was claimed that the suit temple was not a denominational one and as su