Ismail, J.- The second plaintiff in O.S No. 10 of 1966, on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga, who continued the suit after the death of the first plaintiff, is the appellant herein. One Ambalam Thodda Mallappa Chettiar constructed a temple by name Pandu-rangaswami Temple in Aruppukottai. He executed a settlement deed in respect of this temple on 25th November, 1925 and a registration copy of the same has been marked as Exhibit A-3. This settlement deed was executed not only by Mallappa Chettiar, but also by his son, who was also known by the same name, as well as his wife Chennammal. This document stated that on the A schedule property the temple had been constructed and for the purpose of performing neivedyam and other religious rites in the temple, he had constructed a kitchen as well as other buildings and that they were executing the settlement deed so that the said religious rites might be performed permanently. The document proceeded to state that the B schedule property of the value of Rs. 7,000 belonged to the said Mallappa Chettiar and that that was being endowed for the benefit of the temple so that the income from the property could be utilised for the performance of the religious rites in the temple without the property being alienated in any way. The document expressly provided for the performance of poojas in the temple both in the morning and in the evening according to a thittam and also for the performance of certain festivals and for payment of remuneration to the people who were doing services of archanas and melavathiam . The document covered C schedule property also of the value of Rs. 4,000 and stated that the income from the C schedule property was to be enjoyed by the three executants of the document who were trustees of the temple and its properties and the succeeding trustees without any power of alienation. The settlement deed further provided that Mallappa Chettiar would be in charge of the day to day affairs of the temple. When the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board acting under the provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act (II of 1927) demanded contribution from the temple in question, Mallappa Chettiar filed an application on 30th November, 1934 purporting to be under section 84 of that Act requesting the Board to conduct an enquiry and order that the temple was a purely private temple and was exempt from any tax. The Board passed an order purporting to be under sections 18 and 84 of the Act on 12th March, 1935 and that order has been marked as Exhibit B-3 in these proceedings. The Board held that the temple was a public temple, but was an excepted one, since the trusteeship was hereditary. The son of Mallappa Chettiar predeceased his father and after the death of Mallappa Chettiar, the founder, his widow Chen-nammal was functioning as the trustee and on her death, the two widows of the son of the founder, started functioning as trustees. They filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner under section 63 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, for a declaration that the suit temple was not a temple coming within the scope of that Act. The said application was returned by the Deputy Commissioner on the ground that the character of the institution had already been decided and as such that application was not maintainable. That application was represented on 27th October, 1963 stating that the plaintiffs in the suit were not parties to the proceedings in which the nature of the institution was decided and therefore that order would not bind them. Notwithstanding this, on 11th December. 1963 the Deputy Commissioner informed the plaintiffs that there was no valid reason to cancel the order dated 12th October, 1963 and returned the petition. The plaintiffs thereafter preferred an anneal to the Commissioner. Hindu Religious Endowments, in A.P. No. 41 of 1964, as well a revision in R.P. No. 73 of 1064, against the orde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document