The defendants in O.S. 153 of 1976 on the file of Sub-Court, Ramanathapuram at Madurai are the appellants in the above appeal. The respondents, plaintiffs in the said suit filed the same for declaration and permanent injunction.

.2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows :-

.The suit temple has been managed out of the funds contributed by the regular worshippers belonging to the Nadar community. The said temple was never thrown open to any other community for worship. Poojaries are appointed from other community to perform pooja. The Nadar Grocery Merchants of Sivakasi were responsible for upkeep, progress and maintenance of the temple. The suit temple is being managed by the trustees appointed by the Sivakasi Grocery Merchants residing at Sivakasi belonging to Sivakasi Hindu Nadars. The expenses of the temple are met by donations and contributions made by Grocery Merchants from their Mahamai funds. The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department has uniformly accepted and recognised the suit temple as founded by the Grocery Merchants of Sivakasi Hindu Nadars. The plaintiffs submitted accounts to the Endowment authorities and they used to periodically inspect the same. The correspondence between the plaintiffs and the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department will go to show that the suit temple belong to Sivakasi Hindu Nadars residing at Sivakasi.

.3. It is further averred that the suit temple is denominational temple belonging to Sivakasi Hindu Nadars and no member of public is allowed to worship. The Sivakasi Hindu Nadars have a Hindu temple belonging to Hindu community . So, they are by themselves Hindu religious denomination. The H.R. and C. E. Department have no right to interfere with the right of management of with regard to their appointment of trustees to the suit temple. The right to appoint trustees to the suit temple exclusively belongs to the Grocery Merchants belonging to Sivakasi Hindu Nadars. The 1st plaintiff was appointed as a trustee from 5-5-1949 onwards. Now the 3rd plaintiff and the 7th plaintiff were appointed as trustees by the Grocery Merchants. So, the plaintiffs 1, 3 and 7 are the trustees of the suit temple. The suit denominational temple viz., "Sri Sivasubramania Swamy Temple" at Sivakasi is entitled to the protection conferred by Article 26 of the Constitution of India and by Section 107 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Ramnad at Madurai sent a communication to the 1st plaintiff stating that he ceased to be the trustee of the suit temple and directed one K. Kandaswamy, Executive Officer of Viswanatha Koil, Sivakasi to take possession of the suit temple from the 1st plaintiff. The lst plaintiff without getting proper legal advice has assigned in form without bestowing any attention in the matter but they did not hand over any charge to the said Kandaswamy. The plaintiffs sent a notice to the defendants under Section 80, C.P.C. They filed the present suit in representative capacity under Order 1, Rule 8, C.P.C.

4. The 2nd defendant filed a written statement which was adopted by the lst defendant. The suit temple is not a denominational temple belonging to Hindu Nadars and Grocery Merchants among Hindu Nadars residing at Sivakasi. II was never founded and constructed by the plaintiffs community. The suit temple is an ancient public temple. The temple attracts on every day as well as on festival occasions, thousands of devotees irrespective of their castes. The suit temple is a public temple. There are public hundies in the said temple. The public used to pour money into the hundies. The budgets are sanctioned by the Department only. The accounts are subjected to audit and contribution and audit fees under Section 92 of the H. R. and C. E. Act. The 2nd defendant never accepted the suit temple, as a denominational temple belonging to the Hindu Nadars of Sivakasi