This Appeal Suit has been filed to set aside the Judgment and Decree, dated 15.03.2016 passed in O.S.No.751 of 1994 on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, and to allow the present Appeal.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent.

3. The plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.751 of 1994 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Dindigul, is the appellant in the first Appeal. The dispute in this Appeal is relating to temple known as Arulmighu Rajakaliamman Temple, Thethupatty, Dindigul, and the issue is whether the said temple is a public temple or a private temple.

4. The brief facts that are necessary for the purpose of disposal of the Appeal are as follows:-

The plaintiff originally filed an application in O.A.No.1 of 1989 before the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Administration Department, Madurai, namely, the second defendant, under Section 63(a) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959, to declare that the temple, namely, “Arulmighu Rajakaliamman” Temple, Thethupatty, Dindigul Taluk, Dindigul, is not a religious institution, as defined under Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The petition filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the second defendant, by order, dated 14.06.1991. Challenging the said order, the plaintiff preferred an Appeal before the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board, Chennai, namely, the first defendant, in A.P.No.46 of 1991. The said Appeal also was dismissed by an order, dated 08.02.1994.

5. Thereafter, the present suit in O.S.No.751 of 1994 came to be filed as a Statutory Suit under Section 70(1) of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The suit was therefore to set aside the order of the first defendant, dated 08.02.1994, in A.P.No.46 of 1991 and consequently, to declare the temple as a private temple belonging to the family of the plaintiff.

6. The case of the plaintiff in the plaint are as follows:-

“Arulmighu Rajakaliamman” Temple, Thethupatty, is a private temple of the plaintiff and the same is situated in the land in Survey No.431/6A and 431/6B, in Thethupatty Village, Dindigul Taluk. Originally the land in which the temple is located belonged to one R.M.Sivasundaram and the same was purchased by the plaintiff's wife by a Registered Sale Deed, dated 24.12.1975.

7. In the land in Survey No.431/6A, the plaintiff installed a “Thirisulam” representing “Rajakaliamman” the family deity of the plaintiff for the worship of his family members, in the year 1977. In the year 1981, the plaintiff replaced the “Thirisulam” by Deity made of Athi tree and the Deity was known as “Athi Rajakaliamman”. The Deity was worshiped only by the plaintiff and his family members. In the year 1984, the plaintiff built a temple just on the western side of the “Athi Rajakaliamman” and installed a stone Deity known as “Rajakaliamman”. The temple was constructed by the plaintiff and his family members. Since the plaintiff did not object the worship by other people, third parties were also allowed to worship in this temple. However, the entry for third parties was only on permission and they were not allowed to worship in the temple as of right. Since the temple is a private temple, there is no “Hundi”, “Urtchava Vigraham”, “vahanam” and “Kodimaram” which are the special and distinct features found in public temples. The plaintiff was paying salary to the employees and there was no collection of Archana ticket. Any way the temple is not a religious institution as defined under Section 6(2) of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. Voluntarily to protect the interest of the plaintiff and his family members, the plaintiff filed an application in O.A.No.1 of 1989 before the second defendant. Since the second defendant dismissed the