The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit by a Hindu public religious institution for recovery of property cannot be directly filed in a Civil Court and must conform to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.

1. Second appeal No.1316/2008 has been preferred against the judgment and decree of the learned VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai made in A.S.No.482/2007 confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2006 passed by the learned III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.2711/2000.

.2. The suit was filed by the respondent in the second appeal, namely Sree Pravaraswamy

Devasthanam, represented by its hereditary Managing Trustee C.Balaji, against the appellant in the second appeal, praying for a direction against the defendant to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit property, for recovery of rental arrears and for recovery of damages for use and occupation on the basis of alleged termination of the lease created in favour of the appellant/defendant. Among other grounds of defence, the suit was resisted on the ground that the same was not maintainable in law, as the respondent temple/plaintiff temple would come within the purview of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.

3. The trial court framed the question of maintainability of the suit as the first issue and three other issues. At the end of trial, the learned trial judge decided all the issues in favour of the respondent herein/plaintiff and against the appellant herein/defendant and consequently decreed the suit for recovery of possession, for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,500/-as arrears of the rent from February 1999 to July 1999 and thereafter damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs.1,500/-per month till delivery of possession.

4. Impugning the said judgment and decree of the trial court dated 31.03.2006, the appellant herein/defendant preferred A.S.No.482/2007 and the same was dismissed by the lower appellate judge, namely learned VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai on 14.07.2008 confirming the decree passed by the trial court. Hence the appellant/defendant has filed the present second appeal on various grounds set out in the memorandum of grounds of second appeal.

5. Alongwith the second appeal, the appellant has also filed a miscellaneous petition M.P.No.1/2008 in S.A.No.1316/2008 praying for stay of execution of the decree. This court, by an order dated 210. 2008 granted interim stay on condition that the appellant should deposit a sum of Rs.15,000/-towards arrears of rent to the credit of the original suit within two weeks from the date of the said order. In the said order permission was granted to the respondent herein/plaintiff to withdraw the said amount along with any other amount which was already deposited by the appellant/defendant. The appellant/defendant was also directed to pay future rents to the respondent. Admittedly, first part of the said condition was complied with and according to the appellant, the second part of the condition was also substantially complied with by tendering the rent, which was declined by the respondent herein/plaintiff. Under such circumstances, the respondent/plaintiff has filed M.P.No.1/2009 in S.A.No.1316/2008 for vacating the above said order of interim stay.

6. When both the stay petition and the vacate stay petition came up for hearing, it was brought to the notice of the court that the second appeal involved a substantial question of law as to the maintainability of the suit and that hence the second appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. Accordingly, the second appeal itself was heard and the following judgment is pronounced.

.7. The defendant in the original suit, who suffered a decree for recovery of possession, recovery of arrears of rent and recovery of mesne profits before the trial court which came to be confirmed by the lower appellate court, is the appellant in the second appeal. The respondent in the second appeal is the plaintiff in the original suit, which proved to be successful before the trial court and the lower appellate court. The respondent/plaintiff is Sree Pravaraswamy Devasthanam represente