The court clarified the maintainability of suits under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, and the restrictions on the relief sought by the respondent.

Mrs. Prabha Sridevan, J.:

1. The dispute is whether certain properties belong to a temple called Dharmaraja Temple also known as Drowpathi Amman temple in Swamimalai, Kumbakonam or to the respondent. One Narayanasamy Odayar had been performing the charities for this temple from and out of the income of his agricultural lands. By a Will dated 6.3.1960, Narayanasamy Odayar directed that his brother-in-law, the respondent herein should continue to do the charities as the trustee of the temple.

2. The temple is bound to pay annual contribution to the Government in accordance with Sec.92 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (“the Act” in short).

3. The appellant, who is the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. passed an order on 11.10.1980 rejecting the respondents case that the properties at Velakudi are not temple properties. This order was challenged by the respondent by filing a suit, O.S. No.23 of 1981 under Sec.70(2) of the Act, for cancelling or modifying the above order.

4. The trial Court dismissed the suit as not maintainable on the ground that an order passed under Sec.94(2) of the Act cannot be set aside by a suit under Sec.70(2) of the Act and that Sec.108 of the Act bars the filing of suits or legal proceedings except according to the provisions of the Act. The learned single Judge took a contrary view and therefore, the Commissioner has filed the appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the bar under Sec.108 of the Act is very clear and therefore, the only remedy open to the respondent was to file a revision before the Government under Sec.114 of the Act. Reference was made to the decision of a learned single Judge in D.Kandaswami and others v. The Commissioner, H.R & C.E., and another, W.P. No.5350 of 1973 dated 15.10.1973, which was dismissed on the ground that the Government has the power under Sec.114 of the Act to revise the order of the Commissioner, whether the same was passed by him in the first instance or in revision under Sec.21 of the Act.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on Sri Vedagiri Lakshmi Narasimha Swami Temple v. Induru Pattabhirami Reddi A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 781to show that the bar of suits is not absolute and it is confined to such disputes for which the Act provides a remedy. In Sri Vallaba Ganesar Devasthanam v. Kailasa Mudaliar (1980)1 M.L.J. 140cited before us, a learned Judge of this Court held that if the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of his power could not have granted the relief of recovery of possession, the suit cannot be dismissed as not maintainable.

7. Theonly question then is the maintainability of the suit.

8. On facts it has been found that the property referred to in the impugned order belongs to the respondent. In the Will there are specific recitals regarding the lands in Layam Village to the effect that they have to be enjoyed by the widow of Narayanasamy Odayar, the testator for her life time and thereafter, to vest in the suit-temple. But the recitals regarding the property in Velakudi village are not clear. In order to hold that the endowment is in favour of the temple there must be specific recitals to the effect. Exs-A-16 to A-24 and A-30 to A-32 are kist receipts. The disputed properties are in patta No.99. The respondent himself admits that only the lands in Survey No.91/2 in patta No.127 Velakudi Village, Papanasam Taluk of an extent of 60 cents belongs to the temple. He claims title to the lands covered by patta No.99. In the kist receipts for the lands covered in patta No.99 the name of the pattadar is either the respondent or minor Mohan, who is the respondents son. But for the property in Survey No.127, the pattadar is described as Nagarajaodayar Trustee, Drowpathi Amman Temple or Dharmaraja Temple by the Trustee Nagarajaodayar. In Ex-A22, which relates to fasli 1380 as regards patta Nos.99, 126, 114 and 60, the pattadar was shown as Nagaraja Odayar and for patta No.127, as Drowpathi Amman