JUDGMENT

The 1st respondent as a plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.283 of

1993 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Pudukottai, for a declaration that the temple of Sri Mariamman at Adampur Village is not a temple as per the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act and to declare that the office of trusteeship to the temple of Sri Mariamman at Adampur Village is hereditary in nature and for a consequential decree setting aside the orders and judgment of the Commissioner, HR & CE, Madras in A.P.No.29/90 dated 09.11.1992. After trial, the trial Court decreed the suit, by judgment and decree dated 31.07.1995. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendants in the suit as appellants, have filed this appeal. Pending appeal, the 1st respondent/plaintiff died and his legal representatives were impleaded as respondents 2 to 6.

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

The temple of Sri.Mariamman was founded by the plaintiff's grandfather one Lakshmana Servai in his patta land at his cost. It was intended for family worship and no public was ever permitted to worship the deity. Neither for constructing the temple nor for maintaining its affairs, donations were collected from the public. In fact, under a registered deed dated 05.12.1959, about 19 acres of nanja lands were set apart to meet out the expenses connected with the temple. Since its inception, the temple had been in the exclusive management of the founder and later on his descendants. The founder died in 1920 leaving behind his two sons namely, Arunachalam and Kuppusamy. They succeeded to the management of the temple. Arunachalam died in the year 1940 without any issues. Kuppusamy died in the year 1953 leaving behind his two sons namely, the plaintiff and one Lakshmanan. The temple management is thus carried on exclusively by the founder and his decendants till date. The income from the lands are utilised for the poojas and maintenance of the temple. As the public are not permitted to have worship in the temple, it cannot be termed as a temple as per the provisions of the HR & CE Act and no outsider has ever interfered in the administration of the temple. Hence, the temple should be declared as a private temple. In case, it is found that the temple is a public temple, then the plaintiff is entitled to have a declaration regarding the hereditary nature of the trusteeship to the temple. The Deputy Commissioner HR & CE, Trichy, who has been impleaded as the second defendant, has enquired into the matter and dismissed the claim in O.A. 42/84 by orders dated 12.08.1989. Against the said order, the plaintiff filed an appeal under Section 69(1) of the HR & CE Act, before the Commissioner HR & CE, Madras in A.P.No.29/90. The learned Commissioner dismissed the appeal, confirming the orders of the Deputy Commissioner. Hence the suit.

3. Brief averments in the written statement is as follows:-

The defendants would submit that since the plaintiff did not produce any materials to prove that Sri Mariamman Temple is a religious institution founded by the petitioner's grand father one Lakshmana Servai in his patta land and at his cost, the defendants dismissed the application and appeal of the plaintiff. Further, the present suit was not filed within 90 days from the date of receipt of the order passed under section 69(1) of the Act, as per Section 70(1)(ii) of the Act. Hence, the suit is barred by limitation. It is further submitted that by making the alternative prayer claiming that the office of the trusteeship is hereditary one, the plaintiff admits that Sri Mariamman Temple is a religious institution, as defined under Section 6(18) and 6(20) of the Act, and therefore, the provisions of the Act, will certainly apply to it. As per the Revenue records, the temple is located only in the Natham Poramboke land and not in the patta land of the said Lakshmana Servai. Hence, the contention of the plaintiff that the temple was intended for the family wor