Notice under Section 80 CPC is not required for statutory suits under Section 70(2) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act.

The unsuccessful plaintiff in the trial Court is the appellant in this first appeal. The plaintiff filed a statutory suit under Section 70(2) of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act (hereinafter referred as the Act) challenging the order of the second defendant, the Commissioner of H.R. & C.E. dated 5. 88 passed in A.P.No.27/87 and also for a permanent injunction from interfering with the management of the suit temple and its properties.

2. It is seen that as per the provisions of the Act, the second defendant has contested that the plaintiff was not the hereditary trustee in respect of the suit temple situated in the midst of the ThenPennar River in T.Ammapet, Harur Taluk, Dharmapuri District.

3. The Deputy Commissioner of H.R. & C.E. Department has originally passed an order on 112. 86 declaring the first defendant in the suit as the hereditary trustee. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the second defendant in A.P.No.27/87 and the second defendant, the Commissioner, by his order dated 5. 88 has confirmed the earlier order of the Deputy Commissioner of H.R. & C.E thereby holding that the first defendant is the hereditary trustee of the said temple. It is as against the said order, the plaintiff has filed the above statutory suit challenging the order of the second defendant dated 5. 88 as per Section 70 of the Act.

4. The said suit was defended by the first defendant on merits and also on other defence that the suit is barred by limitation, apart from the further contention that the suit filed without issuing notice under Section 80 CPC is not maintainable. The trial Court has framed four issues namely;

i)Whether the suit is barred by limitation,

ii) Whether the Court fee has been paid properly, iii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for cancellation of the order of the second respondent dated 5. 88 passed in A.P.No.27/87 and

iv)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction.

5. The plaintiff has examined 9 witnesses including himself and marked various documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A29. The first defendant also examined himself and marked various documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B9. However, the second defendant remained exparte.

6. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court has found that the suit is not barred by limitation and the trial Court has come to the finding in respect of the Court fee in favour of the plaintiff. As far as the fourth issue regarding the prayer of injunction, the trial Court having found that the H.R. & C.E. Officials are in possession of the temple and the plaintiff is not in possession, hold that the plaintiff is not entitled for injunction. In respect of the third issue while dealing with the validity or otherwise of the order of the second defendant dated 5. 88 passed in A.P.No.27/87, the trial Court has held that the first defendant is not the hereditary trustee and in that view of the matter held that the order of the second defendant dated 5. 88 declaring that the first defendant as hereditary trustee of the temple is not valid in law deciding the issue in favour of the plaintiff. After giving decisions on these various issues on merit, based on the subsequent additional issues framed about the maintainability of the suit in the absence of a notice under Section 80 CPC, the trial court relying upon the judgment cited on behalf of the first defendant reported in 1989 TNLJ 1(Arulmighu Ranganathaswamy Devasthanam Srirangam Vs. His Holiness Srivan Satagop Sri Vedantha Desikar Yathindra Mahadesikan H.T. Vedantha Desikar Sannadhi & Others) has held that in the absence of the notice under Section 80 CPC before filing the suit against the H.R. & C.E department, the suit is not maintainable and in view of the same, the suit was dismissed. It is against the said judgment, dismissing the suit, the plaintiff has filed the first appeal. It is true that in so far as it relates to the finding of the trial Court regarding the above said third issue