The main legal point established in the judgment is that the dedication of the properties for the performance of Naivedyam service to the temple constituted a specific endowment, and the application filed under Section 34 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 was not maintainable.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the decree and order passed in Trust O.P.No.7 of 1996, dated 06.12.1999 and consequential decree, dated 28.06.2000 on the file of the learned District Judge at Dindigul, allowing the said petition filed under Section 34 and 35 of the Indian Trust Act and praying to set aside the same.)

1. The present Revision Petition has been filed by third parties to Trust O.P.No.7 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Court, Dindigul, challenging an order, dated 28.06.2000, wherein the learned Principal District Judge was pleased to permit the respondent Madam to alienate the properties. After obtaining leave of the Court, the third parties, namely, the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department and the Executive Officer of Arulmigu Dandayuthapaniswamy Devasthanam, Palani have filed the present Revision Petition.

2. Facts leading to the filing of the present revision petition are as follows:

(i) Saadhu Chennimalai Thambiran Swamy Madam represented by one L.Manoharan had filed Trust O.P.No.7 of 1996 before the Principal District Court, Dindigul contending that the petition scheduled properties and other properties having an extent of around 23 acres were purchased by one Chennimalai Vellalar Thambiran under a registered sale deed, dated 02.07.1910 as his separate property in his individual name. The said Thambiran had dedicated himself to religious activities and he had established a Madam and he was performing Guru Pooja and Annadhanam. In the year 1925, he passed away leaving behind his only daughter, Chenniammal.

(ii) The said Thambiran, was interned in Samadhi and nearby the said Samadhi, a Vinayagar Temple was also constructed. Swamigal's daughter, Chenniammal had passed away leaving behind her sons, Chennimalai Gounder, Chellappa Gounder and Ramasamy Gounder. The legal heirs were also continuing with the religious duties performed by Thambiran Swamigal.

(iii) Chenniammal and his sons jointly had created an endowment deed on 09.05.1930 appointing five persons as trustees for managing the properties and to continue the religious duties. Out of the five administrators, Vellaiyangiri Gounder and Pongiya Gounder had passed away. Narayanaswamy Gounder and Kuppusamy Gounder were not keeping in good health and they were not able to administer the properties. In such circumstances, A.G.Velayudha Gounder, one of the trustees had filed O.A.No.10 of 1968 before the Deputy Commissioner, HR&CE (Administration) Department, Madurai seeking to declare himself as the hereditary trustee of Saadhu Chennimalai Thambiran Swamy Mutt. An order was passed on 30.12.1967 appointing him as the hereditary trustee.

(iv) The said hereditary trustee, namely, A.G.Velayudha Gounder had executed a Will on 19.03.1971 in which five new trustees were appointed. The said A.G.Velayudha Gounder had executed a power of attorney, appointing one Lakshmana Gounder to take care of the Temple administration.

(v) The said Lakshmana Gounder had passed away on 17.07.1994 leaving behind his only son, namely, the petitioner in trust O.P. Even before his death, the said Lakshmana Gounder had executed a registered power deed on 03.05.1994 in favour of the petitioner in the trust O.P with all powers to administer the trust properties. After the death of Lakshmana Gounder, the petitioner is carrying out all the religious duties and he is in possession of the entire property.

(vi) Out of the 23 acres of land, buildings have been constructed in a small portion and they have been rented out. The balance extent of property is lying fallow and there is no income from the said property. In view of inflation, the petitioner is not able to properly carry out the Temple renovation and other charities. There is no proper income from the petition mentioned properties. There is also an attempt by the third