Heard both sides.

2. According to the petitioners, they are the hereditary trustees pertaining to Arulmigu Karpaga Vinayagar Temple, Pillaiyarpatti, Sivagangai District and they are jointly interested in the subject matter in issue. As a matter of fact, the said temple is a denomination public temple and it was notified by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board. Although the temple is a denomination public temple, it is an excepted temple, in that, the management of the temple is vested with the Nagarathar Community belonging to a particular clan and family through which they derive their title for management and trusteeship of the temple at Pillayarpatti.

3. The stand of the petitioners is that as per the history of the temple, the Nagarathar (Nattukottai Chettiar) living in certain portions of the village, having the ancient history unknown to memory had come to hold the proprietary rights in respect of the said temple and the said temple was founded originally by their ancestors and along with other ancestors of other co-hereditary trustees, who are also entitled to officiate as 'Hereditary Trustees' pertaining to the said temple.

4. The plea of the petitioners is that there is an ancient genealogy pertaining to the founders of the temple, through which lineal male descendants of the original founder have come to derive Title and Interest in respect of the management of the Pillaiyarpatti Temple. Further, since the genealogy is ancient one, it may not depict the successors in interest. In fact, the petitioners, as lineal descendants of the certain branches deriving interest from the original founder have an indefeasible right in the management. That apart, in the ancient history pertaining to the temple during the founders time, only the persons who have paid 'Asthi Vari' i.e. the money payable for foundation of the temple would be the persons, who would gain interest in respect of the trusteeship.

5. The plea of the petitioners is that their ancestors had paid 'Asthi Vari' even on 11.08.1924, which was vouchsafed in the records of the Pillaiyarpatti Temple. The management of the temple viz., the trusteeship as between the lineal descendants of the common founder is by rotation and where there are plurality of persons claiming interest from a particular kin only the upper clan I.e. eldest two members in a particular family would be entitled to claim the right, to officiate as hereditary trustee for that particular turn of the year during which, their trusteeship falls due.

6. The petitioners in their affidavit at paragraph No. 4, of the writ petition had averred that Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are the present trustees in the Office, they are prepared to hand over the possession of the Trusteeship to them. But, as per the practice in vogue, the trustees functioning office required the concurrence of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board Officials for the purpose of handing over of the office to the succeeding hereditary trustees. Further, the said practice is being adopted by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board for the purpose of taking note of the persons holding office for their particular time in order to have an effective supervision of their management of the denomination temple and also to rule out any act of malfunctioning in regard to the office or any act of 'Misfeasance' relating to the funds of the temple.

7. It is the case of the petitioners that in respect of 'Right to Office', there is no interse dispute or any misunderstanding between the persons entitled to hold and officiate as hereditary trustees pertaining to the said temple. Also, in view of their unassailed recognition as hereditary trustees, branching from a particular branch flowing from a common ancestor traced to the genealogy, there is no requirement resorting to any civil court in order to obtain any declaration. The Respondents No. 3 and 4 require a written order from the Hindu Religious and Charitable En