PRABHA SRIDEVAN, J.

The appellant was appointed as a fit person of the suit property by the authorities under the Hindu Religious and Endowments Act (H.R. & C.E. Act)-respondents 2 and 3, according to whom, it was a public temple. Thereupon the first respondent filed the suit against the respondents 2 and 3 and the appellant for a declaration that the suit properties are private and family properties and not a public temple and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interference. . In the plaint the suit property was referred to as Sundareswarar Swami Samadhi. The question of maintainability of the suit was raised by the defendant in view of Section 108 of the H.R. & C.E. Act. The Trial Court decided this issue in favour of the first respondent. The learned Single Judge also held that since the suit property is a samadhi ,the suit was maintainable.

2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant made his submissions with regard to the maintainability of the suit as well as on merits and referred to,

(a) The Mahalakshmi Temple V. The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. (1993 I MLJ 266)

(b) Sri Venkataramanaswamy Deity V. Vadugammal (1974 I MLJ 431)

He a