The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to strictly prove genealogies when claiming hereditary trusteeship, the interpretation of the term 'worshipper' in the context of trusteeship, and the principles governing small temples and the combination of archakas and trusteeship.

A.K. Raj an. J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal is against the judgment of the learned single Judge in A. S. No. 157 of 1983.

2. The respondents herein are the legal heirs of the plaintiff in O.S.No.158 of 1980 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai. The plaintiff in that suit claimed that he was the trustee of Gopal Pillaiyar Temple, Tiruvannamalai. He filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department in O.A.53 of 1977 claiming that he was the hereditary trustee of the temple. His claim was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner; against that, he filed an appeal in A. P. No. 172 of 1978 before the Commissioner, H.R.& C.E; that appeal was also dismissed. Thereafter, he filed statutory suit in O.S.No.158 of 1980 before the Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai to set aside the order passed by the Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner and to declare that the plaintiff the hereditary trustee of the suit temple and for further direction.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the hereditary trustee of Gopal Pillaiyar Temple; the revenue records show that his ancestors were recognised as trustees; in the Inam Fair Register, the plaintiff’s ancestors were shown as the trustees of the temple. But the case of H.R.& C.E. is that the plaintiff is not a hereditary trustee; his forefathers had never been hereditary trustees of the temple. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff Chandrasekara Gurukkal died. Therefore, his legal represen tatives were brought on record. Learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai dismissed the suit. The legal representatives filed Appeal Suit No. 157 of 1983 in this Court. The learned single Judge of this Court has allowed the appeal and decreed the suit as prayed for. Against that judgment passed by the learned single Judge, this present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed.

4. Counsel for the appellants argued that the case of the plaintiff is that his forefathers were the hereditary trustees from time immemorial. But there is no evidence on record to prove that. The counsel further argued that when a person claims as lineal descendant relying upon a genealogy, the genealogy should be strictly proved. In support of that, he relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in State of Bihar v. Radha Krishna Singh, 1983 (3) SCC 1 18 wherein the Supreme Court has held as follows:

"......before going to the oral, documentary and circumstantial evidence, it may be necessary to state the well established principles in the light of which we have to decide the conflicting claims of the parties. It appears that the plaint genealogy is the very fabric and foundation of the edifice on which is built the plaintiff’s case. This is the starting point of the case of the plaintiff which has been hotly contested by the appellant. In such cases, as there is a tendency on the part of an interes ted person or a party in order to grab, establish or prove an alleged claim, to concoct, fabricate or procure false genealogy to suit their ends, the Courts in relying on the genealogy put forward must guard themselves against falling into the trap laid by a series of documents or a labyrinth of seemingly old genealogies to support their rival claims. The principles governing such cases may be summarised thus:

(1) Genealogies admitted or proved to be old and relied on in previous cases are doubtless relevant and in some cases may even be conclusive of the facts proved but there are several considerations which must be kept in mind by the Courts before accepting or relying on the genealogies:

(a) Source of the genealogy and its dependability.

(b) Admissibility of the genealogy under the Evidence Act.

(c) A proper use of the said genealogies in decisions or judgments on which reliance is placed.

(d) Age of genealogies.

(e) Litigations where such genealogies have been accepted or rejected.

(2) On the question of admissibility the fol