The judgment establishes the criteria for declaring trusteeship as hereditary under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, emphasizing the need for consistent and substantial evidence to prove hereditary trusteeship.

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of Sub-Court. Villupuram passed in O.S. No. 12 of 1985 which is a suit to set aside the order of the Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras, the fifth defendant herein dated 3.9.84 passed in A.P. No. 99 of 1983 and for a declaration that the office of the trusteeship of the suit temples is hereditary. The plaintiff is the appellant.

2. The plaint averments can be summarised. The plaintiff is the hereditary trustee of three temples dedicated to Pillaiyar, Pidari Amman and Ammachiar at Thanikalampattu village, Tirukoilur Taluk. They are all ancient temples and have been in the management of the plaintiff and his ancestors for more than three generations. The plaintiff and his ancestors have been rendering service as Pusaris and also as hereditary trustees for the temples. A genealogical table showing the family tree of the plaintiff and his ancestors is appended to the plaint. Prior to the year 1980, Chinnathu Kounder was the trustee and Pusari of the suit temples and he died leaving his five sons, Ulakka Kounder, Kutturaju Kounder, Rama Kounder, Narayana Kounder and Ramanathan. After the death of Chinnathu Kounder, his five sons administered the temples jointly and they were functioning as hereditary Pusaris cum trustees. The devolution of Trusteeship of the suit temples has passed on to the legal heirs of Chinnathu Kounder, the first from father to son and to grandsons in an unbroken line of succession. The plaintiff is therefore the present hereditary trustee of the three temples aforesaid. The suit temples have got a total extent of 2.75 acres of inam land and the plaintiff is in management of the land and the income is utilised for defraying the day-to-day expenses and for the administration of the temples. Thus, the office of the trusteeship of the three temples is hereditary in nature. The plaintiff filed an application in O.A. No. 31 of 1982 before the fourth defendant under Section 63 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act for declaration that the office of Trusteeship of the suit temples is hereditary impleading the defendants 1 to 3 who have been appointed as non-hereditary trustees by the Assistant Commissioner without any enquiry. The fourth defendant dismissed the application on 30.9.1983 and an appeal was preferred before the fifth defendant in A.P. No. 99 of 1983 and it was dismissed by the fifth defendant on 3.9.1984. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the suit under Section 70 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act.

3. The defendants 1 to 3, in their written statement, have contended that there is no proof to show that all the three temples were managed by the ancestors of the plaintiff for the past three generations as Poosari-cum-hereditary trustees. The plaintiff and his father were karnams of the suit village and they had created certain documents to show that the plaintiff and his ancestors were managing the suit temples. The genealogical table provided by the plaintiff is not correct. After due enquiry, the fourth defendant has found that the plaintiff is not a hereditary trustee and dismissed his application. The fifth defendant also dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the fourth defendant. The defendants 1 to 3 are managing the temple lands and the Temple Authorities have leased out the lands on 20.2.85 in public auction in favour of Ponnusamy and Subramanian and those lessees are in possession and enjoyment of the temple lands as tenants. The affairs of the suit temples were maintained and managed by the Village Committee till the defendants 1 to 3 were appointed as Trustees. The Poojas and festivals were done to the suit temples through public collection. Neither the plaintiff nor his ancestors ever performed any Pooja or festival for the suit temples.

4. The defendants 4 and 5, in their written statement, contended that the Inam Fair Register Extract filed by the plaintiff conta