JUDGMENT :

The first respondent in both the appeals as a plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.49 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli, against the officials of the HR & CE Department, District Collector, Tirunelveli and four other private parties, to set aside the order passed by the first defendant/Special Commissioner and the Commissioner, HR & CE., Chennai, in A.P.No.22/2002, dated 26.09.2003 and for a declaration to declare the plaintiff as hereditary trustee of the suit temple. After trial, the trial Court, by judgment and decree dated 21.11.2005, decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the private defendants filed A.S(MD)No.345 of 2005 and the officials of the HR & CE Department filed A.S(MD)No.53 of 2009. As pleadings and submissions are common, both the appeals are heard together and disposed by this common judgment.

2. Brief facts stated in the plaint are as follows:-

About 100 years ago, one Arunachala Thevar established the suit temple namely, Thanthondri Amman Kovil in Veeranam Village. Originally, the suit temple was formed in zamin land and after the enactment of Zamindari Abolition Act, 1950, the land in which, the suit temple was established, was classified as grama natham. From that date, the said Arunachala Thevar administered and developed the suit temple through his income and the funds collected from the villagers. After his death, his son Chinna Puliappa Thevar administered the suit temple from 1982. He purchased properties for the suit temple in the capacity of managing trustee of the suit temple and the patta for the suit temple also stands in his name as managing trustee. During his life time, he developed the suit temple by constructing a compound wall, obtaining electricity connection and dug well. He also put up the idols of lord Karuppasamy and Kathavarayan in the suit temple and purchased Gold Thali and silver eye flower for Thanthondri Amman. After the death of Chinna Puliappa Thevar, his son/plaintiff administered the suit temple as managing trustee and the officials of the HR & CE Department also recognised him. During his life time, he purchased brass and aluminum vessels for the suit temple and further, kept a deposit in the Indian Overseas Bank, Veeranam. In this way, the plaintiff, his father and grandfather administered the suit temple as managing trustees without any objection by the villagers. However, now the fifth defendant and his relatives objected to the rights of Dharmakarta and filed O.A.No.8/90 before the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE/second defendant. After hearing both sides, the second defendant passed an order in favour of the plaintiff that he is the hereditary trustee of the suit temple. Against the said order, the fifth defendant and two others filed an appeal in A.P.No.22/2002 before the first defendant/Special Commissioner and the Commissioner, HR & CE., Chennai, who after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side, passed an order dated 26.09.2003, holding that the office of the trusteeship of the suit temple is non hereditary. According to the plaintiff, without considering the above-stated factual position and the order passed by the second defendant, the first defendant erroneously allowed the appeal thereby denying the hereditary trusteeship of the plaintiff to the suit temple. Hence, the suit.

3. Brief facts in the written statement are as follows:- The official defendants 1 to 4 have filed a written statement stating that the suit is not maintainable due to lack of territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court and that the suit is also barred by limitation since it was not filed within 90 days of the order dated 26.09.2003 passed in A.P.No. 22/2002. The suit temple was established by the villagers in the zamin inam land and now it is classified as grama natham and the inam land register revelas that one Palani is the worshipper of the suit temple. There is no evidence that Arunachala Thevar established the