This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree, dated 111. 1996 made in O.S.No.998 of 1988 on the file of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.

2. The appellant herein was the plaintiff in the suit before the trial court. Aggrieved by the order of the first respondent, Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. (Admn) Department, the statutory suit under Section 70 (1) of H.R. & C.E. Act, XXII of 1959 was filed by the appellant herein.

3. According to the appellant / plaintiff, he is holding office as Hereditary Trustee in Sri Vinayagar Temple, situated at Eachanari Village, Coimbatore, within the meaning of Section 6 (11) and 63(b) of H.R. & C.E. Act. It is not in dispute that the temple is located in S.No.636/2 and 633 of Kurichi village with an extent of 1-18 acres on the western side of Coimbatore – Pollachi Main Road. According to the appellant / plaintiff, the vinayagar idol in question had been brought from Madurai to Perur for installation, nearly 150 years ago and while transporting the idol in a hand cart, the cart was broken down and the Vinayagar idol was fallen in the sitting posture. Though the villagers made attempt to lift the idol, they could not do so. In the result, the idol was temporarily installed and worshipped there itself. According to the appellant, his grand father Kupanda Gounder had taken interest in the installation of the idol by erecting a thatched shed and made it for worship and was looking after the day-to-day affairs of the temple, as Founder-cum-Hereditary Trustee. After the death of Kupanda Gounder, his son, father of the appellant Krishnaswamy Gounder succeeded the office of the Hereditary Trusteeship in the temple and continued to hold office. After the death of the said Krishnasamy Gounder, appellant, being his son succeeded the office as Hereditary trustee in the temple. However, the plaintiff was recognised as Vice President and Treasurer in the year 1967 in the Tiruppani Committee, which was formed with the approval of the H.R. & C.E., Department and the appellant took personal interest and completed the renovation work in the year 1977. He was also responsible for performing Kumbabishekam of the Temple. Though, he was holding the post as Hereditary Trustee, Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., also appointed him as trustee of the Temple. The H.R. & C.E., Department has also appointed an Executive Officer to the temple, under Section 45 (1) of the Act.

4. In order to obtain a statutory declaration under Section 63(b) of the Act, the appellant had filed an application in O.A.No.1 of 81, on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Department, Coimbatore, claiming the office of Trusteeship as Hereditary, within the meaning of Sections 6 (11) and 63 (b) of the Act. However, the same was dismissed on 30.04.1985. Aggrieved by which, the appellant preferred an appeal under Section 69

(1) of the Act, the same was also dismissed on 11.07.1988. Aggrieved, by which, the statutory suit was filed.

5. In the written statement, the respondents herein have denied the claim of the appellant, stating that he had never been Hereditary Trustee of the Temple. According to the respondents, the appellant was appointed as Hereditary Trustee only in the year 1972 and subsequently, reappointed in the year 1975 and in the year 1979.

6. Mr.W.C.Thiruvengadam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that though he was appointed as trustee by the respondents herein, he is entitled to seek a declaration that he is a hereditary trustee of the suit temple, by way of substantiating evidence. According to the learned counsel, there is no statutory bar in claiming hereditary trusteeship, merely on the ground that he was appointed as trustee by the respondents. The learned counsel further contended that originally Kupanda Gounder, was performing pooja for the vinayagar idol, by putting a hut, subsequently, after his demise, Krishnaswamy Gounder was performing pooja till he died in the yea