This appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.151 of 1991, aggrieved by the Judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur, dated 05.12.1995, dismissing the said suit in O.S.No.151 of 1991.

2. O.S.No.151 of 1991 had been filed under section 70(1) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, seeking to cancel the order of the Commissioner, HR & CE, Chennai, who was first defendant and the Deputy Commissioner, HR & CE, Chennai, who was the second defendant in A.P.No.59 of 1990 and O.A.No.51 of 1988 respectively, and to held that the temple is only sectional in character and for further relief restraining the first and second defendants from interfering with the management of the suit temple and frame a scheme safeguarding the rights of the three communities on the basis of the memo of consent dated 12.03.1991.

3. The suit had been filed by five plaintiffs for themselves and as representatives of Thevars, Senaithalaivars and Yadavas (of Tamil and Telugu Origin) in Seithur, Mettupatty Village. It must been mentioned that pending appeal, the first and third appellants, who were the first and third plaintiffs died and the appeal has been continued by the second, fourth and fifth appellants. It must also be mentioned that in the suit the 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants were independent persons.

4. The suit had been filed with respect to the Arulmigu Mariamman Temple at Seithur, Mettupatty Village. It was claimed that it was an ancient temple and under the exclusive management of representatives of Thevars, Senaithalaivars and Yadavas of Seithur, Mettupatty Village. It had been stated that they are the Kovil kudigal. The plaintiffs are the representatives of the three communities. The deity is worshipped as kulatheivam. They donate contribution for the renovation and development of the temple. The Zamindar of Seithur was the President, till he was alive. His nominees and assistants were also included in the management committee. However, the fit person was appointed to the temple by the Assistant Commissioner, HR & CE, Ramanathapuram at Madurai. The executive office of Arulmigu Nachadai Thavirthu Arulia samy temple was appointed Devadanam as a fit person for the post of Executive Officer. This was objected by the plaintiffs. They filed O.A.No.51 of 1988 before the second defendant, who is the Deputy Commissioner HR & CE, Chennai. He rejected the said application. Thereafter, they filed an appeal in A.P.No.59 of 1990 before the first defendant, who is the Commissioner, HR & CE, Chennai. The appeal was also dismissed. The plaintiffs claimed that they were not given sufficient opportunity. Consequently, to uphold the rights of the three communities namely, Thevars, Senaithalaivars and Yadavas with respect to the management of the suit temple, the suit had been filed under section 70(1) of HR & CE Act, 1959.

5. In the written statement filed by the first and second defendants, it was stated that the plaintiffs had no locus standi to institute the suit. It was denied that only the three communities namely, Thevars, Senaithalaivars and Yadavas managed the temple. It was also denied that these three communities constituted a single unit and worship the deity as Kulatheivam. It had been stated that the three communities did not form a religious denomination. It had been stated that the executive officer, Devadanam was appointed as a fit person. It had been stated that settlement of a scheme for administration of the temple was not necessary. The first and second defendants stated that the suit should be dismissed.

6. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the learned Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the suit temple is a sectional temple belonging to the three communities of Seithur Mettupatty Village, namely, Thevars, Senaithalaivars and Yadavas (both of Telughu and Tamil Origin)?

2. Whether the court has jurisdiction to try this suit?

3. Whether the orders p