Jurisdiction of Civil Court to maintain the suit.

The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the suit which is for a declaration that the suit properties are trust properties belonging to Sri Vallaba Ganesar Devasthanam, Tiruvannamalai and for recovery of possession of the same is barred under section 108 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (Tamil Nadu Act XXII of 1959), (for short, the Act).

2. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 24 of 1974 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Tiruvannamalai viz., Sri Vallaba Ganesar Devasthanam, Tiruvannamalai by trustees are the appellants.

3. The facts leading to the institution of the suit may be briefly stated as follows. There is a temple called Sri Vallaba Ganesar Devasthanam, Thiruvannamalai. The suit properties are the Devasthanam properties having been endowed by its original owner in favour of the temple. The first defendant had been appointed as a truster of the temple. Subsequently, plaintiffs 1 to 4 have been appointed as trustees of the Devasthanam for a period of 3 years by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, (for short, the Board). The appointment was made on 29th September, 1973. The first plaintiff has been elected chairman, Board of Trustees at the meeting held on 19th October, 1973. The first defendant has been directed to hand over charge to the first plaintiff with all the relevant records as well as the properties of the Devasthanam. Without handing over the charge to the first plaintiff, the first defendant filed R. P. No. 221 of 1973 before the Commissioner of the Board and has obtained a stay of the election of the Chairman. In the meanwhile the first defendant alienated the suit properties to defendants 3 to 20 under various documents. The properties are inalienable. The sanction of the Board had not been obtained prior to the alienation. If at all the alienation of the properties has to be effected it could only be done by public auction. The first defendant is stated to have deposited the sale proceeds in fixed deposits with the Cooperative Urban Bank Limited, Tiruvannamalai, in the name of his wife nominating his wife as the heir. The properties have been sold for a ridiculously low price. The alienations are not binding on the trust. The first defendant is not entitled to remain in possession of the properties. The first defendant is denying the title of the Devasthanam to the suit properties. In the circumstances the suit has been filed for a declaration that the suit properties are trust properties belonging to the Devasthanam and for the recovery of possession of the same from the defendants.

4. The suit is resisted by defendants 1, 3 to 7, 10 to 13, 15, 16, 18 and 19. The first defendant has contended that the suit is barred under sections 108 and 63 of the Act, in view of the fact that there is a specific provision in sections 101 , 63-d and 63-g of the Act to decide whether the suit properties are religious endowment. The suit properties have not been endowed to the Devasthanam at all. A charge has been created in favour of the temple to the extent of Rs. 150 per year. Under the compromise decree in O.S. No. 122 of 1909 a provision had been made for the creation of a private trust to carry on certain charitable and religious objects, partly for religious and partly for secular, in respect of items 15 to 20 therein. The properties were to be divided among three persons. All the sharers should out of the profits pay Rs. 150 for conducting the charitable and religious objects. The first defendant has been accordingly carrying out the directions contained in the compromise decree. The first defendant is the hereditary trustee of Ammamuthu Ammal Private Trust and only in that capacity he has sold the properties. The properties that have been sold are uncultivable lands yielding no income. It is admitted that the first defendant is keeping the money with him but only in the Interest of the trust. The various alienations said to have been effected by th