Presumed that no interference was made by either worshippers or villagers.

This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the judgment of Jagadisan,J., who confirmed the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore in Original Suit No. 267 of 1956. The said suit was filed by the appellant for a declaration that he and defendants 6 to 12 of (members of his family) are the hereditary trustees of three small temples, Sri Thiru Nandhiswara Swami Temple, Sri Kailasanathar Temple and Sri Selva Vinayakar Temple in Sircar Kannadiputhur in Udamalpet Taluk in Coimbatore District, and that the order of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, appointing defendants 1 to 5 as trustees is invalid and would not affect the rights of the plaintiff.

On 20th November, 1955, the Assistant Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board appointed defendants 1 to 5 as non-hereditary trustees. The plaintiff filed a petition under section 57-B of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner for a declaration that plaintiff and defendants 6 to 12 are the pujaris and hereditary trustees of the temple. That petition was rejected and an appeal before the Commissioner was equally unsuccessful. The present suit has been instituted to set aside the order of the Commissioner for the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments.

The documentary evidence in this case mainly consists of the Inam Fair Register, Exhibit A-1 and Exhibits A-2 to A-4 extracts from the register relating to the village of Sircar Kannadiputhur. The entries in the aforesaid documents show that the devadayam was granted by the Palayagar of Madurai in favour of the three deities aforesaid and Subramania Gurukkal, admittedly an ancestor of the plaintiff, was acting as the pujari and managing and attending to the affairs of the temple. It is clear from the evidence that these three temples do not own any other property except the devadayam grants of a total extent of 6 acres in the village of Kannadiputhur. Both the learned Subordinate Judge, as well as Jagadisan, J., have found that, for a very long number of years, the plaintiff and his predecessors-in-title have been in possession and management of the properties functioning as trustees while at the same time performing the daily puja and also attending to the annual festivals. Evidence also is clear that none of the villagers took any interest in the affairs of the temple nor interfered in any manner with the management of the temples and their affairs and the lands by the plaintiff and his predecessors-in-title for a very long number of years. In fact on this aspect of the matter both the trial Court as well as Jagadisan, J., had accepted the plaintiff’s evidence. There is no satisfactory rebuttal evidence either. While discussing the evidence, the learned Judge has summed up as follows:-

“The only property which these temples had is an extent of six acres of land in the village. These lands were no doubt in the possession of the poojarh. Evidence is that they have been receiving the income from these lands, performing daily pooja and maintaining themselves from out of the income..........It is no doubt true that the members of the plaintiff’s family have been getting the income from the suit temples’ land and utilising it for their own benefit as well as for the upkeep of the temples. But this would not be evidence of the management of the temples. The fact of possession of the inam lands could only be attributed to their functioning as archakas in which right they were in possession of the lands. If this conduct is consistent with their capacity as poojari it may also be consistent with the right of trusteeship, now put forward. But it cannot be said that there is such conclusive proof as would enable the members of the plaintiff’s family to claim prescriptive right of hereditary trusteeship. This is a peculiar case in which the mere fact of possession of inam lands will not by itself be sufficient to establish the claim of trusteeship now put forward by the