Vesting of control of institution on natives of Tenkasi has been mentioned in the document.

1. Defendants 2 and 3 are the appellants.

2. The suit was filed for declaration that the suit property belonged to the plaintiffs Samudayam and for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the joint possession of the suit properties by the plaintiffs and to frame a scheme to administer the suit properties and for removal of the defendants from the post of trustees.

3. The case of the plaintiffs is as follows: The properties belonged to Senkunda Mudaliar Samudayam at Tenkasi and the surrounding 56 villages. Since the suit properties are situate at Courtallam and Senguntha Mudaliar residing at Tenkasi nearer to it, were managing the properties. The Copper Plate inscription of the year 887 shows that the Senguntha Madam belongs to Sengunthar community living in Tenkasi and 56 villages. Donations are collected from the community living in 56 villages for the improvement of the suit properties. The Tenkasi Senguntha Mudaliars added the word “Thenkasi” to the words “Sengunthar Madam” and it was objected to by Keezha Pavoor Sengunthar Mudaliar Samudayam on 12.8.1977. Though the plaintiff sent a notice on 29.1.1985 to defendants, there was no reply.

4. The first defendant filed a written statement supporting the claim of the plaintiffs.

5. The defendants 2 and 3 filed a written statement opposing the claim of the plaintiffs. The suit properties belong absolutely to Thenkasi Sengunthar community only. The first defendant failed to render accounts, hence the second defendant was elected as President and the third defendant was elected as Secretary. They are in management of the Madam and its properties. The plaintiffs have no right in Thenkasi Sengunthar Samudhaya Madam.

6. The fourth defendant also filed a separate written statement. He supported the contention of the defendants 2 and 3.

7. The trial court framed eight issues and the main issue is: Whether the properties belong to the Sengunthar Samudayam as a whole or to Thenkasi Sengunthar Samudayam alonee After finding that the suit properties belonged to the entire Sengunthar community of Tamil Nadu, the trial Court decreed the suit granting the relief of declaration and removal of the defendants 1 to 3 from the trusteeship. It directed that the framing of the scheme should be agitated in a separate proceeding.

8. The defendants 2 and 3 preferred the appeal to the Additional. District Judge, Tirunelveli. The lower appellate Court also concurred with the finding of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the second appeal in this Court.

9. The learned counsel for the appellants Mr.K.Chandrasekaran, contended that the suit properties belonged to Thenkasi Sengunthar community alone and not to the entire Sengunthar community living in Tamil Nadu. Secondly, he contended that the suit is not maintainable in view of Secs.63 and 108 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. He further contended that since the case relates to the administration of religious institution, including the framing of a scheme, the suit is not maintainable, since no sanction was obtained from the Advocate General as contemplated by Sec.92 of Civil Procedure Code.

10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents Thiru Peppin Fernando, contended that the Courts below have concurrently found that it is a Madam belonging to the entire Sengunthar community of Tamil Nadu and this Court cannot interfere with the judgment and decrees of the Courts below. He further contended that the properties are not belonging to any religious institution but only to a Madam. Therefore, neither the provisions of Civil Procedure Code nor the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 will apply to this case. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.

11. In view of the fact that the courts below have found that the Madam and its properties belong to Sengunthar community people living in the entire Tamil Nadu and not to the Sengunthar community li