The main legal point established is that to claim a Temple as a Denomination Temple under Article 26 of the Constitution of India, the Plaintiff must prove exclusive management and a distinct religious identity, which the Plaintiff failed to establish.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Appeal Suit has been filed, under Order 41 Rule 1 read with Section 96 of CPC, against the judgement and decree, dated 02.11.2012, made in OS.No.8455 of 2010, by the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.)

1. This Appeal Suit has been filed, against the judgement and decree, dated 02.11.2012, made in OS.No.8455 of 2010, by the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The suit was filed for declaration that the Plaintiff Temple is a Denomination Temple, coming within the meaning of the Article 26 of the Constitution of India and for permanent injunction.

3. The case of the Plaintiff is that the Plaintiff Temple belongs to Thiruneelakanda Marabinar, Shanmugananapuram or Kosapet Samuthayam of Kuyavars and it was established by the forefathers of the present Trustees about more than 200 years ago. The forefathers of the Trustees had built up the Temple in 1903 and properties were endowed to the Temple by C.Munusmy Pillai, who is the grandfather of the present Trustees. On 07.09.1978, the present Trustees established Sri Durgai Amman and Navagraha statues and renovated the same on 09.02.1998. The Trustees had filed an application before the Joint Commissioner, seeking to recognize them as Hereditary Trustees, under Section 63(b) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act. Without recognizing the rights of the Trustees as well as earlier litigations in OS.No.503 of 1859, the application was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the Trustees had filed an appeal in AP.No.20 of 2009. Pending the appeal, a fit person appointed to be in charge of the Plaintiff Temple disturbed the management of the Temple. Hence, the Trustees had filed WP.Nos.809 of 2009 and 1587 of 2009 and both WPs were disposed of by this Court, directing the Defendant Department to dispose of the appeal, dated 12.12.2008, within a period of three months and further observing that until the disposal of the appeal, the impugned order shall not be enforced. The Defendant has no right to interfere with the right and administration of the Plaintiff Temple. Even in 1859 a litigation was instituted in OS.No.503 of 1859, wherein the right of the founders was established and it was concluded that the Plaintiff Temple is a Denomination Temple and the said judgement is binding on the Defendant. The order of the Joint Commissioner in OA.No.8 of 2006 clearly established the same. The rights of the present Trustees and establishment of the Temple as Denomination have been well recognized even as early as 1763. The Plaintiff had issued a notice, under Section 80 of CPC, dated 30.04.2009, to the Defendant, but no reply was sent. In such circumstances, the suit had been filed, seeking the reliefs, as stated above.

4. The case of the Defendant, in a nutshell, as set out in the written statement, is as follows:-

a) The Plaintiff's Temple is a public Religious Institution as defined under Section 6(20) of the Tamilnadu Hindi Religious and Charitable Endowments Ac. The Plaintiff had already filed several Applications before the authorities under the Act for declaration that the Office of Trusteeship of the Temple is hereditary and subsequent suits were also filed and they failed in their attempts. The suit in OS.No.120 of 1977 filed under Section 70 of the Act was dismissed on 31.3.1978, holding that the order of the Commissioner, HR & CE is legally valid and the appeal filed as against the same in AS.No.1091 of 1978 was also dismissed on 24.11.1983. The Deputy Commissioner, Chennai had appointed the Executive Officer of the Arulmighu Ellaiyammal Temple, Periyamedu, Chennai, in his proceedings RC.20088/91/A1, dated 3.1.1992 as a fit person of the Plaintiff Temple.

b) Thereafter, one S.Pandian had filed OS.No.7 of 92 before the Deputy Commissioner, Madras, under Section 63(b) of the Act and the same was dismissed, as withdrawn with a liberty to file a fresh application. The application had been called for by the Assistant Commissi