( 1. ) THIS Appeal Suit is focussed by the original defendants 1, 2 and 4 animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 21.09.1995, passed in O.S.No.471 of 1988 by the learned District Munsif, Kulithalai.

( 2. ) THE parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Appeal Suit would run thus:

The plaintiff filed the suit, seeking the following reliefs - "(a) declaring that the plaintiff temple - viz. the Idol of Sri Viswanathaswamy temple at Manathattai Village, Kulithalai, is a private temple belonging to 4 families namely Vembu Iyer and others and consequentially granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, servants and subordinates and other officials from interfering with the administration of plaintiff by way of bringing the suit coconut trees in public auction on 27.10.88 or in any other date, or in any other manner whatsoever; (b) awarding costs of the suit to the plaintiff; (c) and granting such other further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice." on the ground that Sri. Viswanathaswamy Temple referred to in the plaint is a private temple and the property described in the plaint schedule is the property of the temple. According to the plaintiff, the H.R. and C.E. authorities are unnecessarily trying to interfere with the administration of the temple as well as with the suit property.

( 3. ) PER contra, the second defendant filed the written statement resisting the suit on the main ground that the suit itself was not maintainable in view of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Act 22 of 1959). The Assistant Commissioner of H.R. and C.E. passed Ex.B.3, dated 10.06.1988, appointing the third defendant as the fit person and as such, as on date, the so called private trustee has no right to deal with the plaintiff temple and the said temple is a public one. Accordingly, he prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

( 4. ) WHEREUPON, the relevant issues were framed. During the trial on the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.3 were marked and on the side the defendants D.W.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked.

Ultimately, the trial Court decreed the suit, as against which the present Appeal Suit has been filed on various grounds, virtually reiterating the grounds as found set out in the written statement filed before the trial Court.

( 5. ) THE points for consideration are:

(i) Whether the suit filed before the Munsif Court by the plaintiff was tenable, in view of Sections 6(7), 63 and 70 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959? (ii) Whether the plaintiff was justified in approaching the Civil Court without exhausting the remedies contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959?"

( 6. ) THE aforesaid points are taken up together for discussion as they are inter-linked and interwoven, entwined and intertwined with each other.

The gist and kernel, the pith and marrow of the arguments, as put forth by the learned Additional Government Pleader would run thus: The provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 would pellucidly and palpably make the point clear that the plaintiff, who is the self styled trustee had no right to approach the Civil Court without exhausting the remedy contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. Already, the Assistant Commissioner of H.R. and C.E. appointed a fit person to take charge of the administration of the temple, but in the meanwhile such an untenable suit was filed and consequently a decree was obtained, which is liable to be set aside.

( 7. ) IN a bid to mince meat and shoot d