The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide disputes over hereditary trusteeship when there are rival claimants, and the authorities under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act do not have the authority to decide who among the rival claimants is entitled to hereditary trusteeship.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court dated 30.07.2021 passed in A.S.No.111 of 2018 on the file of the Subordinate Judge`s court, Sivagangai, confirming the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court dated 24.09.2018 passed in O.S.No.5 of 2015 on the file of the District Munsif`s Court, Sivagangai and to allow the Second Appeal.)

1. The plaintiff is the appellant in the Second Appeal. He had filed a suit for declaration that he is the hereditary trustee of the Kattalai known as Shri Swarnakaliswarar Temple Devakottai Jamindar Kattalai and restraining the respondents 1 and 5/defendants 1 and 2 from making any encumbrance of the said Kattalai and rendition of accounts and delivery of documents.

2. It is the case of the plaintiff/appellant that one AL.AR.Ramasamy chettiar was the founder of the Kattalai known as Devakottai Jamindar Kattalai and the plaintiff is the direct lenial descendant of the said Ramasamy chettiar. The said Ramasamy chettiar executed a Will on 18.11.1899 stating that the first born male member in the family shall be the hereditary trustee. After the demise of Ramasamy chettiar, his elder son Arunachalamchettiar succeeded the trusteeship. After him, one Kalairajachettiar succeeded. The said Kalairajachettiar had a son by name Veerappachettiar, who had two sons, namely, the plaintiff/appellant and one Veerappan. The plaintiff/appellant as a son of Veerappachettiar was appointed as trustee of the Kattalai. While so, one Narayanachettiar claimed himself to be the direct descendant of Ramasamychettiar and attempted to act as trustee of the Kattalai. The plaintiff''s case is that the defendants 1 and 2/respondents 1 and 5 were not direct descendants. However, they claim trusteeship as against the plaintiff''s rights.

3. The defendants 1 and 2/respondents 1 and 5 resisted the said suit stating that they are the descendants of one Arunachalamchettiar. They have stated that they being the descendants of one Arunachalamchettiar, who was the senior most male member, they are the hereditary trustees. They had filed a petition under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint in I.A.No.206 of 2015 on the ground that a suit was not maintainable in view of Section 63(b) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The said petition was dismissed on the ground that there was a dispute between the plaintiff/appellant and the respondents/defendants as to who should be the hereditary trustee in respect of the temple concerned.

4. The Court found that the question as to whether who should act as a hereditary trustee is a question that cannot be decided by the Board and it is only for the Civil Court to decide such issues. The Court relied upon the judgments of this Court, wherein, this Court had held that when there are rival claimants as to who should be the hereditary trustee, the same cannot be decided by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 63(b) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act and the dispute has to be decided only by the Civil Court. This order had become final and there is no challenge to this order. While so, the first respondent raised a preliminary issue before the Trial Court as to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide the instant case. The Trial Court took up the issue on maintainability of the suit which was framed as eighth issue. The Trial Court found that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The Appellate Court also confirmed the findings of the Trial Court and held that for the purpose of deciding whether the plaintiff is the hereditary trustee, there is an express provision made under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, namely, Section 63 and 108, to deal with such disputes.

5. This Court had admitted the Second Appeal on the following substantial questions of law:

(a) Whether the Courts below are right in law in directing th