The 1st defendant is the appellant.

2. The plaintiffs case is that his father Suppanna Gounder had installed the idol of Vinayagar for his exclusive worship and for the benefit of this family members in Vilaankurichi Village. The deity was called Ishata Siddi Vinayagar. The idol was installed and a small temple was built by the said Subbanna Gounder out of his own funds. The public have nothing to do with the temple. They have had no occasion to participate in the management or worship. There are no indications to show that it is a public temple. On 18.5.1959, the said Suppanna Gounder executed a settlement deed settling some properties for the upkeep of the temple. Subsequently, the settlement deed was revoked by a registered document dated 27.7.1967. The H.R. & C.E. Department began to appoint fit persons to take charge of the temple and the 2nd defendant (2nd respondent herein) was appointed as the fit person. After Subbanna Gounders death it was the plaintiff who was managing the suit temple and therefore, he filed O.A.No.168 of 1976 under Sec.63(a) of the H.R. & C.E. Act for a declaration that the suit temple is not a religious institution as defined under the Act. T