Compliance with the requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC is essential for the first appellate court's judgment, and a conscious application of mind and recording of findings supported by reasons for the decision are necessary.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: The Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC, against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.42 of 1997 dated 31.08.2000 on the file of the Sub Court, Kallakurichi reversing the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.934 of 1989 dated 31.10.1996 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi.)

1. The plaintiff, N.S. Chokkanatha Chettiar who filed O.S. No. 934 of 1989 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi, against the Assistant Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Cuddalore and the Inspector H.R. & C.E., Kllkurichi, seeking a declaration that Sri Vasavi Kannika Parameswari Amman Temple at Kallakurichi belongs to the Arya Vysya community and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with administration of the temple was the appellant.

2. Pending the second appeal, the appellant, N.S. Chokkanatha Chettiar died and B. Subramaniam was brought on record to prosecute the appeal further.

3. By judgment dated 31.10.1996, the learned Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi decreed the suit.

4. The defendants then filed A.S. No. 42 of 1997 before the Sub Court at Kallakurichi. By judgment dated 31.08.2000, the learned Sub Judge allowed the appeal suit, thus dismissing O.S. No. 934 of 1989 necessitating the plaintiff to file this second appeal.

5. The second appeal had been admitted on the following substantial questions of law :

“1. Whether in law the lower appellate court did not errin not even framing one point for determinationas contemplated under Or. 41 Rule 31 CPCand as set out in 1997 (1) LW 704 (DB) ?

2. Whether in law the lower appellate Court was right in overlooking that the respondents had not taken any proceedings under Sec. 17 of the T.N.H.R.&C.E. Act ?

3. Whether in law the lower appellate court was not wrong in overlooking that the respondents had not exercised any power under Sec. 49 of the T.N.H.R.&C.E. Act ?”

6. In the plaint in O,S. No. 934 of 1989, the plaintiff, N.S. Chokkanatha Chettiar, claiming to be the community trustee of Sri Vasavi Kanniga Parameswari Temple at Kallakurichi, stated that the temple was constructed by the Arya Vysya community of Kallakurichi, and was not a religious institution coming within the purview of the T.N. Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. It was worshipped by the members of that community alone. Furthedr, the temple does not own any property and the expenditure for the daily poojas were met with contributions from members of that community alone. The idol was originally installed in the Arya Vysya Choultry. Thereafter, with contributions from that community people, the temple was consecrated on 28.01.1983. It was asserted that the temple was a private temple and not a public temple and that the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board has no right or lien over the temple.

7. It had been further stated that the 1st defendant, the Commissioner, H.R.&C.E. Department, Cuddalore by proceedings dated 08.06.1988 had stated that the 2nd defendant, Inspector, H.R.&C.E., Kallakurichi had been appointed as temporary trustee and directed the plaintiff to handover the management of the temple. The 2nd defendant had also issued a notice on 13.09.1989 on the same lines. It was under such circumstances that the suit was filed seeking a declaration that the temple is a private temple belonging to the Arya Vysya Community of Kallakurichi and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the management of the temple and for costs.

8. A written statement was filed by the defendants denying and disputing the averments stated in the plaint. It was asserted that the temple was a public temple. It was further stated that the Arya Vysya community was a part of the Hindu community and they cannot claim exclusive management or administration of the temple. It was further asserted that the defendants have a right to regulate the management and it was therefore urged that the suit shou