1. This second appeal is focussed by the plaintiff, animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 19.01.2005 passed by the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in A.S.No.246 of 2004 confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2003 passed by the learned V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.2388 of 1994.

2. The parties, for convenience sake are referred to here under according to their litigative status before the trial Court.

3. Heard both sides.

4. Synoptically and succinctly, pithily and precisely, the germane facts, in a few broad strokes, can be encapsulated thus:

a] The second appellant herein happened to be the plaintiff, who filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:

- To pass a judgment and decree declaring that

-The plaintiff trust M/s. Subbammal Trust also known as Rajammanar Kalyanamandapam in respect of the schedule mentioned property is a private trust;

- For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants their agents, servants, officials and other persons from interfering with the plaintiff's administration of the trust and management thereof in any manner and for costs. (extracted as such) on the main ground that the G.O.Ms.No.443, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowment Department dated 15.10.1974 issued by the Deputy Secretary to Government relating to the alleged mismanagement of the plaintiff's trust, was one without jurisdiction because the plaintiff's trust happened to be a private trust over which, neither any Government official nor the government could issue such Notification.

b) Written statement was filed by the first defendant-Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment contending that as per Section 108 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, such a suit was not maintainable in the civil court straightaway. The facts relating to the case also were found detailed in the written statement.

c] The trial court framed the relevant issues.

d] During trial, on the plaintiff's side, its Managing Trustee C.P. Srinivasan examined himself as PW1 and marked Exs.A1 to Ex.A7. On the defendant's side, DW1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked.

e] Ultimately the suit was dismissed by the trial court as against which, the appeal was filed by the plaintiff for nothing but to be dismissed by the appellate court confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court.

f] Challenging and impugning, assailing and questioning the correctness and the legality of the judgments and decrees of both the courts below, the plaintiff has preferred this second appeal on various grounds.

5. The learned counsel for the second appellant/plaintiff placing reliance on the grounds of second appeal would develop his arguments, which could pithily and precisely be set out thus:

a) The plaintiff trust is a private trust and the Government officials unnecessarily assumed as though there were mal-administration of the Trust etc.

b) The prayer for declaration that the plaintiff trust is a private trust is a civil right and the civil court under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure could very well entertain it.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff would also reiterate the suggested substantial questions of law as found set out in the memorandum of second appeal.

7. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the first respondent/D1 would reiterate the stand of the Government official -R1 in the written statement. According to her, Section 108 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act was a clear bar for filing the suit itself.

On balance, she would pray for the dismissal of the second appeal as there is no question of law much less any substantial question of law involved in this matter.

8. My learned predecessor framed the following substantial questions of law.

1. When the burden of proving the mal-administration is with the defendants, is the learned Principal City Civil Judge is correct in dismissing the suit?

2. Is the