S.S. Sundar, J.

The defendants in the suit in O.S.No. 54 of 1990 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Thanjavur, are the appellants in the above Second Appeal.

2. The respondent in this appeal filed a suit in O.S.No. 54 of 1990 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Thanjavur, to set aside the order passed by the second defendant in A.P.No.61 of 1986, dated 06.07.1989 and for consequential relief. This suit is a suit filed under Section 70 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The respondent earlier filed an application in O.A.No.35 of 1985 under Section 63(a) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act for a declaration that Arulmigu Ramalinga Swamy Samathi in Puthur Village, Papanasam Taluk, Thanjavur District is not a religious institution coming under the purview of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. This application was dismissed by the first defendant in the suit namely the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Thanjavur, by order dated 27.06.1986. As against the said order, the respondent herein filed an appeal before the second defendant namely the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai, as provided under Section 69(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The second defendant also confirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department and hence, the respondent herein filed the suit in tune with Section 70 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. In the plaint, the respondent has reiterated his case before the Deputy Commissioner, in the application filed under Section 63(a) of the Act.

3. It is the consistent case of the plaintiff that the small institution known as Ramalinga Swamy Samathi situate in Puthur Village in Papanasam Taluk, is not a temple or a religious institution as defined under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. Though it is not a mutt, according to the respondent, Shri Ramalinga Swamy Samathi cannot be considered as a religious institution.

4. The respondent specifically pleaded that he has been holding the office of trusteeship after the death of one Kovindammal who was earlier holding the office of trusteeship for a period of ten years prior to his office. Before the said Govindammal, it was contended by the respondent that her husband Late Krishnaswamy Pillai was the trustee. Similarly, it was also contended by the respondent that the father of Krishnaswamy Pillai by name Muthusamy Pillai was holding the office of trusteeship prior to his son.

5. It is stated by the respondent that one Ramalinga Swamy, the founder of the temple was a holy person and he died unmarried. It was the case of the respondent that the said Ramalinga Swamy was entombed in the property and later, by his descendants namely the family members, he was worshipped. According to the respondent, the said Ramalinga Swamy himself wanted a samathi to be erected after his death. It was further contended by the plaintiff that the said Ramalinga Swamy was a close relative of Muthusamy Pillai's father by name Ramaswamy Pillai. Since the Ramalinga Swamy Samathi was a private institution of the descendants of the founder by name Ramalinga Swamy, the plaintiff contended that it is not a public temple or a religious institution to be recognised as one coming under the purview of the Act. It is also the plaintiff's case that the said Govindammal, executed her last Will and testament on 01.06.1983 and that by virtue of the Will, the plaintiff became the successor to the trust. After the death of Govindammal on 18.07.1984, the plaintiff became the trustee to manage the suit institution. It was further c