The Plaintiffs in OS.No.46 of 1993, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 25.2.2005, passed by the Principal Sub Court, Dindigul, have filed this appeal under Section 96 of CPC read with Section 70(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, as amended.

2. The suit in OS.No.46 of 1993 was originally filed by V. Ramasamy Pillai. He died during the litigation and consequently, his legal heirs were brought on record as the Plaintiffs 2 to 6 and they are the Appellants herein.

3. V. Ramasamy Pillai had filed the suit under Section 70(a) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, seeking to set aside the order of the 1st Defendant, who was the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, Chennai in AP No. 57 of 1988, wherein by order dated 28.4.1992, the said appeal had been dismissed. A further relief, seeking to declare that the suit property was not a religious institution was also sought.

4. In the plaint, it had been stated that the suit property was actually a Samadhi. The suit property was at Adianoothu Village, Dindigul in S.Nos.812, 813, 814/2 and 816, measuring in all 4 acres 33 cents. However, the relief in the suit as well as in the present appeal has been limited to S.No.813 alone, which is a Samadhi, measuring around 6 ft. in length and about 3 or 4 ft. in breadth. It had been stated in the plaint that Parameswara Gnaniar, the great grand father of the original Plaintiff V.Ramasamy Pillai, was burried in the said Samadhi in S.No.813 and his descendants/the family members conducted poojas out of their own income. It was strictly a family related private pooja. The said Samadhi was built up by the Plaintiff's grand father Sivagurunatha Pillai. The said Samadhi was called Parameswara Gnaniar Pandara Math at Nagal Nagar, Dindigul. Dharmadayam Inam had been granted with respect to the entire area of 4 acres and 33 cents in S.Nos.812, 813, 814/2 and 816 in Adianoothu Village by the then Rajas and the income from the property was used for the maintenance of the said Samadhi. This Inam grant was confirmed by the Inam Commissioner in TD.No.40. The general public were also attracted to the Samadhi and they also offered poojas. However, the ownership and management vested with the family of the Plaintiffs.

5. It had been further stated that Guru Pooja was also conducted. After the death of Sivagurunatha Pillai, the father of the Plaintiff Valaya Pillai and later, the original Plaintiff V. Ramasamy Pillai were in control of the Samadhi. The appurtenant lands in S. Nos. 812, 814 and 816 had been sold as they were private properties inherited through Inam grant. In 1948, the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board took suo moto proceedings in OA No. 134 of 1948 and thereafter realising that the Samadhi would not come under its purview, the proceedings were dropped. Subsequently, fresh proceedings were initiated in OA No. 277 of 1948 and the Samadhi was declared as a Math. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that the said order was not binding on them.

6. In 1973, the 1st Defendant, who was the Assistant Commissioner, HR&CE, Madurai attempted to appoint a non hereditary trustee. A revision petition in RP No. 257 of 1973 was filed before the 2nd Defendant, the Commissioner, HR&CE, Chennai and the proceedings of the 1st Defendant was set aside. In 1974, the Plaintiff's filed a petition under Section 63B of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act to declare him as a hereditary trustee, but owing to legal advise, withdrew the same. Therefore, he filed OA No. 16 of 1984 before the Assistant Commissioner, HR&CE, Madurai, who was the 1st Defendant under Section 63A of the said Act. This was dismissed on 27.11.1987. An appeal was filed in AP.No.57 of 1988. This was also dismissed by the 2nd Defendant on 28.4.1992. Consequently, the suit was filed, seeking to cancel the order in AP.No.57 of 1988 and to declare that the Samadhi was not a religious institution as