The main legal point established in the judgment is that the suit temple is a private temple belonging to the plaintiff Sabha and not a public temple, and the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959 shall not apply to the suit temple.

1. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department, Chennai and the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department, Chennai, who figured as the defendants in O.S.No.4429 of 1989 on the file of the V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai are the appellants herein. Sree Ayyappa Baktha Sabha represented by its Secretary K.V.Thangappan Nair, the plaintiff in the above suit, is the respondent in this appeal.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a petition before the Deputy Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department, Chennai in O.A.No.4/1984 under Section 63(a) of the Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959 for getting a declaration that Sree Ayyappa temple constructed by the respondent/plaintiff sabha in the property bearing New No.45, (Old No.28), Sir Madhavan Nair Road, Madhavan Nair Colony, Nungambakkamm, Madras-600 034 was not a Hindu public religious institution coming under the purview of the said Act and that it was a private temple which came into existence for the benefit of the members of the Sabha. The said application was filed pursuant to the steps taken by the officials of the H.R. & C.E. department to bring the temple under the control of the department. It had been prayed in the said application that the suit temple should be declared as a private temple not coming under the definition of section 6(20) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959, (Act 22 of 1959). After enquiry in the said original application O.A.No.4/1984, the Deputy Commissioner, H.R & C.E. Administration Department, Chennai passed an order with the following observation:-

"Although the petitioner sabha is maintaining a temple in which public religious worship exists, if there is no public dedication, it has to be concluded that the Ayyappa temple situated in the private land of Sree Ayyappa Baktha Sabha, Madhavan Nair Road, Madhavan Nair Colony, Nungambakkamm, Madras-34 has not been dedicated for the benefit of or use as of right by the Hindu community or any sections thereof as a place of public religious worship."

The said order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Administration Department on 10.03.1987.

3. As against the said order of the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Administration Department, as it is quite natural, no third party filed an appeal. However, the first appellant/first defendant, namely the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Administration Department, Chennai, exercising his power of suo motu revision under Section 69(2) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, issued necessary notice on the suo motu revision to the respondent/plaintiff sabha. In spite of the objections raised by the respondent/plaintiff sabha placing materials in support of its case, the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Administration Department rejected the contentions of the respondent/plaintiff sabha, found fault with the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Administration Department in O.A.No.4/1984, set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Administration Department passed in O.A.No.4/1984 and held that Sree Ayyappa temple situated at No.45, Madhavan Nair Road, Madhavan Nair Colony, Nungambakkam was a Hindu public religious institution as contemplated under Section 6(18) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.

4. As against the said order of the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Administration Department dated 13.01.1989, the respondent/plaintiff filed a statutory suit under section 70(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 in O.S.No.4229/89 and prayed that the said order should be set aside and the suit temple should be declared a private temple not coming under the definition of religious institution as contemplated under section 6(18) of the said Act. The suit was resisted by the appella