This appeal has been filed as against the judgment and decree dated 02.12.2003 passed in O.S.No.156 of 1998 by the Sub Judge, Ramanathapuram.

2. The parties, for convenience sake, are referred to hereunder according to their litigate status before the trial Court.

3. Broadly but briefly, narratively but pithily, the case of the plaintiffs as stood exposited from the plaint could be set out thus:

(i) The plaintiffs four in number, are the hereditary trustees of the religious institution known as Sri Kandamanaparvatham in Rameswaram, as found described in the schedule of the plaint. It is a place of religious worship. One Neelakanda Sivam @ Neelakanda Iyer @ Neelakanda Joshi, the ancestor of the plaintiffs about five hundred years ago, founded it. The said founder constructed massive structure well within his property and installed the Peedam on which the sacred footprints of Lord Rama were found.

(ii) He started worshipping the Peedam and he constituted himself as Poojari cum trustee of the said institution. The plaintiffs have furnished the genealogy. As such, following the founder, his descendants namely the sons and grandsons and thereafter, the male descendants of the founder have been acting as Poojaries cum trustees of that institution and they have been performing Poojas and managing the institution. The plaintiffs ancestor one Loganathan Sivam was functioning as Poojari cum trustee. Rama Iyer and Subba Iyer had no issues and Parvatha Iyer had four sons Loganatha Iyer, Anda Iyer, Neelakanda Iyer and Neelakanda Bairava Iyer. Mahadeva Iyer had a son by name Neelakanda Sammana Iyer. After the life time of Rama Iyer and his brothers, the sons of Parvatha Iyer and Mahadeva Iyer succeeded to the office of hereditary trusteeship cum poojariship and they all together performed the poojas and they managed the institution.

(iii) It is well known that in Rameswaram, the famous temple of Sri Ramanathaswamy is situated. The pilgrims who visited that temple also visited the suit institution. However, the construction was comparatively simple and there is no big tower or massive praharams. Various kings belonging to the Naicker Dynasty and the Sethupathi Dynasty who had contributed their wealth for the additional constructions of the said temple and for proper upkeep of the said temple had made a permanent records of their contributions by causing various inscriptions on the stone walls within the temple and by having their images and those of their ancestors carved out in the form of statues and installing those statutes at various places within the temple premises. Following the kings, Zamindars started having control over the said Ramanathaswamy temple. Neither the kings nor the Zamindars had control over the hereditary trustees of the suit institution.

(iv) In fact, Zamindar of Ramanathapuram issued pattas in the names of the ancestors of the plaintiffs for the suit property over which the institution is situated. It was never treated as subsidiary institution of Sri Ramanathaswamy Temple, even though Raja of the Ramanathapuram himself was the hereditary trustee of the said temple. Sri Ramanathaswamy temple was managed by a Board of trustees headed by Raja of Ramanathapuram as the Chairman of Board of trustees. But, there was no Board of trustees for the suit institution. During the year 1917, the then trustees of Sri Ramanathaswamy temple tried to install Hundial in the premises of the suit institution. But, the ancestors of the plaintiffs objected to it and thereupon, such attempt was stopped.

(v) The trustees of Sri Ramanathaswamy temple did not spend any money for the maintenance or upkeep of the suit institution. The Deputy Commissioner, H.R & C.E, Madurai initiated suo motu proceedings in O.A.No.2 of 1965 under the Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959 for determining the question whether the suit institution was a public religious institution or not. The grandfather of the first plaintiff contested the matter.

(vi) Thereafter,