The jurisdiction of the civil court in declaring a temple as a private temple is limited by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.

1. This second appeal is focussed by the defendants, animadverting upon the judgement and decree dated 22.01.2004 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Vellore in A.S.No.94 of 2003 confirming the judgment and decree dated 25.04.2003 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Vellore in O.S.No.1017 of 1996 (transferred from Sub Court Vellore O.S.No.108 of 1988)

2. The parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. Heard both sides.

4. The epitome and the long and short of the relevant facts, absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Second Appeal would run thus:

a. The plaintiff, filed the suit seeking the following reliefs: - to declare that the suit A Schedule temple is a "denominational one [ "subsequently amended as "family temple" as per order in I.A.No.706 of 1998 dated 23.02.1999] exclusively meant for the family of Periamunusami Chetti and Chinnamunusami Chetti and for consequential injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment and management of the same. – to declare that the heirs of Periamunusami Chetti and Chinnamunusami Chetti are entitled to be in possession of the suit "B" Schedule property for the purpose of doing "DHARMA KAINGARYAM" as per the registered partition deed dated 16.06.1999 and for consequential injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same by the plaintiff's family. - to direct the defendants to pay the plaintiff the costs of the suit. (extracted as such)

b. Written statement was filed by the defendant concerned, resisting the suit. c. Whereupon issues were framed. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 along with P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.A1 to A57. On the side of the defendants, the fifth defendant examined herself as D.W1 along with D.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.B1 to B27.

c. Ultimately the trial court decreed the suit in toto. As against which, appeal was filed by the defendants 1 to 3 for nothing but to be dismissed confirming the judgement and decree passed by the trial court.

d. Challenging and impugning the judgments and decrees of both the courts below, this second appeal has been filed on various grounds inter alia to the effect that the courts below were wrong in holding that the suit property belongs to the private temple and the Government is having nothing to do with that and accordingly, declaratory relief and injunction were also granted. As such, the appellants suggested the following substantial questions of law.

1. Whether the courts below had erred in holding that the suit was maintainable when the institution of the suit is specifically barred under the provision of Sec.108 of the H.R. & C.E. Act?

2. Whether the courts below had erred in holding that the burden to prove that the temple was a public temple was not on the defendant when it is well settled law so far as temples in Tamil Nadu are concerned, there is a presumption that all the temples are public temple?

3. Whether the courts below had erred in discarding the evidence in the Inam Register as to the nature of the grant "Dharma Dhayam" in the present case?

4. Whether the courts below had erred in not appreciating the fact that the plaintiff had miserably failed to prove that the entry to the temple by the public was not by right but by way of license or permission from the plaintiff/respondent?

5. Whether the courts below had erred in not appreciating the fact that the respondent not having challenged the order of the appellant dated 11.3.88 appointing a fit person for the administration of the temple is estopped in claiming that the temple is a private temple? (extracted as such) However, my learned predecessor while admitting the second appeal, based on the available materials on record, framed the following substantial question of law: Whether the courts below had erred in holding that the suit w