Point of law: Section 63, it is the Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner who has to decide any dispute as to whether an institution is a religious institution or not. Even before deciding whether an institution is a religious institution or not, it has to be understood what is an institution.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: The Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the Judgment and Decree dated 23.05.2008 made in A.S.No.18 of 2006 on the file of the Fast Track Court No.3, Dharapuram (Additional District and Sessions Court) insofar as confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 22.09.2004 made in O.S.No.97 of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Kangeyam and praying to set aside the same.

(Heard through Video Conferencing)

1. This Second Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 23.05.2008 passed in A.S.No.18 of 2006 on the file of the Fast Track Court No.3, Dharapuram (Additional District and Sessions Court) insofar as confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 22.09.2004 passed in O.S.No.97 of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Kangeyam and praying to set aside the same.

2. The Appellants are the defendants.

3. The plaintiff and his forefathers have been worshiping Shandiga Devi Amman idol kept inside a small room of their palace. It is the favorite deity of the plaintiff and his forefathers. For more than 200 years, the idol is kept inside a room in the palace. It is for the sole darshan and worship of the family members of Sarkarai Mandaradiar and no outsider had access to the said room where the idol is kept. There is no temple for the said idol. Even the place where the idol is kept is called as a temple, that is only for the sole benefit and darshan of Mandaradiar’s family. There is no Pragaram, Hundiyal and it has no properties. So it does not come under the control of Endowment Department or under the purview of the provisions of Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 22 of 1959. The plaintiff's family and their forefathers are well reputed and respectable in Tamil Nadu. All of a sudden, the plaintiff received the suit proceedings in Na.Ka.No.2987/99/A6 dated 03.04.2003 from the first defendant. It is stated in the proceedings that the Executive Officer of Arulmigu Subramania Swami Thirukkovil, Sivanmalai has been appointed as the fit person for Shandiga Devi Amman Thirukkovil and the plaintiff has been directed to handover charge to the fit person. The authorities exercising jurisdiction under the said Act, have no authority to interfere with the alleged temple and its worship and management by the plaintiff. The first defendant has no jurisdiction to appoint any fit person. It seems that there are some malafide intention on the part of the defendants and it was issued due to political pressure. Notice under Section 80 C.P.C. is not necessary since the suit is against the Endowment Board. The plaintiff filed a suit to declare that the order of appointment of 1st defendant in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.2987/99/A6 dated 03.04.2003 appointing the 2nd defendant as the fit person of the suit temple is null and void and for permanent injunction.

The written statement

4. The suit is barred under Section 108 of HR&CE Act. The suit temple is a public temple and only because of that, an extent of 20.93 Acres was as Inam in the name of the temple. The idol is not a private temple of the plaintiff and it is a public temple. The plaintiff's ancestor by name Sarkarai Mandaradiar, has applied patta for 20.93 Acres and the settlement Tahsildar has granted patta on 04.10.1967 in favour of the temple. So the plaintiff is estopped from claiming any private right in the temple. So the temple is a village public temple. The plaintiff ought to have filed an application before the Hindu Endowment Authorities as per Sections 63A and 69 of HR&CE Act. The lands belonged to temple has been shown as excess lands under the Urban Land Ceiling Act by making use of the political influence of the plaintiff and the Hindu Religious Endowment has objected the same on 25.05.1999. The defendants have the right to take hold of the temple in order to ensure proper pujas and other managemen