Dispute regarding public temple and private temple.

1. The defendant in the suit has preferred this appeal suit against the judgment and decree dated 29.10.1986 made in O.S.No.10 of 1984 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil.

2. The respondents herein have filed the suit against the appellant Board seeking to set aside the order passed by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board in his A.P.No.13 of 1983, dated 30.6.1983 on grounds that one Narayana Perumal, son of Peda Perumal constructed 'Arulmigu Srimen Narayana Temple' at a place Koyyavilai in Neendakari 'B' village in Survey Nos. 10925 and 10928 in an extent of 40 cents of land for the worship of the family members; that there is no idol in the temple and only by litting the light, they used to worship; that the ancestors of the plaintiffs worshipped the temple; that during settlement on the application of Peda Perumal Nadar and Shamugha Perumal Nadar, the ancestors of the plaintiffs, the patta for the temple land had been issued and thereafter, in the partition that took place on 26.9.1121 M.E. among the family members, the name of the temple has been mentioned in the said partition deed, further reciting therein that the temple had to be administered as per the traditions of the family; that in the year 1966, temple's Mulasthanam was constructed by Peda Perumal and Senbagaraman at a cost of Rs.60,000 and that the ancestors of the plaintiffs have annexed properties in the name of the temple.

3. The further contentions of the plaintiffs are that since the second respondent Board attempted to interfere with the administration of the temple by the plaintiff’s family, an application under Section 63(a) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made to the Deputy Commissioner stating that the temple was not a public temple and the said authority passed on order as per his O.A.No.19 of 1977 declaring that the temple was a public temple. O n appeal before the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Board made in A.P.No.177 of 1977, the Commissioner admitted the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh enquiry and disposal by the Deputy Commissioner himself and hence, the Deputy Commissioner as per his O.A.No.34 of 1979 again enquired into and dismissed the application and on appeal in A.P.No.13 of 1983 preferred the second time before the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Board: that appeal also came to be dismissed by the Commissioner holding that it was a public temple and hence under Section 70 of the Act, seeking to declare that the temple is not a public temple but a private temple owned by the family members of the plaintiffs, the statutory suit has been filed praying to set aside the order passed by the Commissioner as above mentioned.

4. The plaintiffs would pray for the said relief on the pleadings that the temple has no flag-pole, no deity, no Utsavamurthy and only the family members of the plaintiffs are performing the poojas: that there is no hundi nor any money collected from the general public for the management of the temple and on such grounds, they would file the suit praying for the relief extracted supra.

5. On the part of the defendants, it would be pleaded that the temple is of the dimension of the public temple: that even though there is no idol, poojas are being performed and the temple had been devoted for the public purpose: that the properties of the temple are in the name of the temple: that it cannot be admitted that the temple was started by Narayana Perumal: that because of the averments of the partition deed, the characters of the temple as public temple cannot be erased: that apart from the family members of the plaintiffs, some others belonging to the Hindu religion have also contributed sufficiently to the development of the temple: that there is no reason to set aside the order passed by the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. and that the suit is barred by limitation. On such averments on the part of the defendant/Board,