In O.A.No.99 of 1939, proceedings instituted under section 84 of Madras Act II of 1927, the Board of Hindu Religious Endowments held that Sri Kanni Amman Temple, Manapakkam, Chingleput District, was an “excepted” temple as that was defined by Act II of 1927. That finding naturally implied that the trusteeship in that temple was hereditary.

It was common ground that Venkatachala was the founder of the temple.. The petitioners’ case was that after the death of Venkatachala, his son-in-law Kolaindavelu succeeded to the office of trustee. Kolandaivelu had three sons. The first petitioner claimed she was the heir to Kanniappa, one of the sons of Kolandaivelu, and that the second petitioner was the widow and heir of Rajamanicka, another son of Kolandaivelu. The petitioners claimed to have succeeded to the office of trustee on the death of Kolandaivelu’s sons.

The first respondent in his turn claimed that he was entitled to succeed to the office of trustee as he was the reversioner to the estate of Venkatachala. The first respondent filed an application, which was numbered as O.A.No.17 of 1953, under section 57(b ) of Madras Act XIX of 1951. The Deputy Commissioner eventually decided t