Suit is barred by virtue of Act XXII of 1959.

The second defendant is the appellant in this appeal. The first and the second respondents herein filed O.S. No. 203 of 1963 in the District Munsif’s Court, Tirunelveli, for a decree declaring the properties set out in the suit schedule as absolutely endowed kattalai properties for the performance of Nithiya Pooja, Neivethiyam, etc., in Perumal Koil, Sivan Koil, Kulakarai Ganapathi Koil and Sastha Elangavu Kannar Koil at Puliyoorkurichi village, Nanguneri Taluk and to direct the defendants 1 to 8 to deliver possession of them on behalf of the trust either to the plaintiffs as worshippers or to the lawful trustee of the Kattalais. The suit further prays for mesne profits from the date of the plaint to the date of delivery of possession. The plaintiffs inter alia alleged that as per the registered partition deed dated 2nd February, 1872, executed between Arunachalam Pillai his brothers, and sons of Ramasubramania Pillai of Puliyoorkurichi village, the schedule properties are absolutely endowed for the performance of Nithiya pooja, Neivethiyam etc., in Perumal Koil, Sivan Koil, Kulakarai Ganapathi Koil and Sastha Elangavu Kannar Koil at Puliyoorkurichi village. The dedication is absolute and the entire income from these properties are to be spent for the said kattalais at Puliyoorkurichi. The recitals in the partition deed clearly establish the trust and admit no other interpretation. The properties were enjoyed by the first defendant and his father only as trustees and not in any other capacity. In short, the properties are to be the absolute endowment for the kattalais. The plaintiffs further alleged that the first defendant in the suit alienated certain properties either by sale or by mortgage with possession to the defendants 3 to 8 in the suit. But those alienations in favour of defendants 3 to 8 are void. It is further stated in the plaint that the defendants 1 and 2 have obtained razinama decree in O.S. No. 620 of 1961 on the file of the District Munsif’s Court, Tirunelveli, on 29th November. 1962, wherein they have collusively and fraudulently laid their claims to those properties by the said decree as if they are their own. It is also stated that the said decree, if any, would not bind the trust or the plaintiffs. In fact, it is after the said razinama decree, dated 29th November. 1962. the plaintiffs were aware of the alienation and the said transaction of the first defendant in respect of the plaint schedule properties belonging to the trust. With the above said allegations O.S. No. 203 of 1963 was filed.

The District Munsif took up for consideration the first issue in the suit which is as follows:-

“Is the suit not maintainable by virtue of the provisions of Act (XXII of 1969) and by virtue of the plaintiffs not having obtained the consent in writing of the Advocate-General for instituting the suit?”

The District Munsif observing that the dispute arises as to whether the schedule property is a religious endowment, whether it is a specific endowment and whether this endowment if true is wholly or partly of the religious or secular character and whether the property has been given wholly or partly for religious uses, that under section 63 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, a Deputy Commissioner has been granted power to enquire into and decide the matters, that the proper forum for the decision of these questions would be the Deputy Commissioner, that section 69 provides for the appeal to the Commissioner by an aggrieved person of an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, that any party aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner has under section 70 of the Act, the right to institute a suit in Court against such order, that the Court may modify or cancel such order and any party aggrieved by a decree of the Court may within 90 days appeal to the High Court that section 108 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959, is a specific bar to suits in respect of adminis