The central legal point established in the judgment is that matters regarding the private nature of a temple and the hereditary trusteeship fall within the jurisdiction of the statutory authority under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, and therefore, such matters are not maintainable before the Civil Court.

JUDGMENT

(Common Prayer: Second Appeals filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 17.08.2016 and made in A.S.Nos.55 & 56 of 2015 on the file of the Sub Judge, Sathyamangalam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 26.02.2014 and made in OS.No.406 of 2010 & OS.No.155 of 2009 respectively, on the file of the District Munsif, Sathyamangalam. )

Common Judgment

1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in both the suits is the appellant before this Court. Second Appeal in S.A.No.72 of 2017 is arising out of suit for declaration that the suit temple is a private temple of Uppliappa Naicker Community and for injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the right of the appellant to administer the temple. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court and the findings of the trial Court were affirmed by the first Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the appellant has preferred the Second Appeal in S.A.No.72 of 2017.

2. Second Appeal in S.A.No.73 of 2017 is arising out of the suit for declaration that the respondents herein is not the hereditary trustee of suit temple and for a consequential injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the appellant's right to administer the temple. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court and findings of the trial Court were confirmed by the first Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings the appellant has come up with this Second Appeal.

3. These Second Appeals are admitted by this Court on the following substantial questions of law by order dated 31.01.2017:

“1.Whether the Courts below committed an error of law in dismissing the suit when the fourth defendant in para 13 of his written statement had categorically admitted that the suit temple is a community temple?

2. Whether the Courts below committed an error of law in holding that the fourth defendant is a hereditary trustee in the absence of any proceedings appointing the fourth respondent as hereditary trustee either by the respondents 1 to 3 nor any Government order had been passed to that effect?”

4. When the Second Appeal was taken up for hearing, this Court posted a question to the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the maintainability of the suit prayer before the Civil Court in view of Section 63 (a) r/w 108 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The learned counsel for the appellant advanced the arguments on this aspect. The issue regarding the maintainability of the Civil suit in respect of the declaration sought for in the two suits regarding the private nature of the temple and the hereditary trusteeship etc., are all the matters which have to be adjudicated before the statutory authorities namely, Joint Commissioner under Section 63(a) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act.

5. In S.A.No.72 of 2017 the appellant seeks a declaration that the suit temple is a private temple belongs to a particular community. Whether the temple is a public temple or private one is a matter to be decided by the Joint Commissioner under Section 63(a) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The said position has been clearly laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Inspector/Fit person HR & CE., Arulmighu Sundaresa Gnaniar Koil Cholakadai Street Dharapuram Vs. Amirthammal and 3 others, reported in 2003 (1) CTC 484. The relevant observation of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the above mentioned case as follows:

“12. In the present case though there is a reference in the plaint to the suit property being a “Samadhi” the relief asked is for a declaration that the property is not a public temple. This is a dispute that falls under Section 63(a) of the HR & CE Act. It is not an incidental question that is asked to be decided in the suit, but the only question. Therefore, this dispute ought to have been adjudicated by the authority under the Act and as pointed out