The Deputy Commissioner lacks jurisdiction to decide hereditary trusteeship disputes among rival claimants; such matters must be resolved in Civil Court.

JUDGMENT

The appellants have preferred this Second Appeal against the Judgment and decree dated 08.08.2008 made in A.S.No.4 of 2008, on the file of the Principal District Court, Salem, confirming the judgment and decree dated 10.01.2007 made in O.S.No.271 of 1999 on the file of the Sub- Court, Sankari.

2.The respondents 1 and 2 (plaintiffs) filed a suit for a declaration and other consequential reliefs, challenging the order passed by the HR & CE / 2nd and 3rd defendants in O.A.87 of 1990 dated 06.04.1992. They sought to declare this order invalid and to declare that the plaintiffs and the 3rd defendant alone hold the office of the trusteeship, along with other consequential reliefs. All three defendants contested the suit, and it was finally partly decreed in favor of the plaintiffs by granting the first relief. Accordingly, the order passed by the 2nd defendant / HR & CE in O.A.87 of 1990 was declared invalid, but the suit was dismissed with respect to the other reliefs. Aggrieved by this, the defendants 4 to 9 preferred the first appeal. Since the 1st defendant had died, leaving behind his legal heirs, a cross-objection was also filed by the plaintiffs in A.S. No. 4 of 2008, and both were jointly tried. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the findings of the trial court. Challenging these findings, the legal heirs of the 1st defendant have now preferred this second appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants prayed to set aside the findings of the Court below as unjust and illegal, on the following grounds:

i. The Courts below have failed to note that the suit itself is not maintainable in law under Section 108 of the HR & CE Act. Suits relating to the administration of management of a temple and performance of poojas cannot be decided in a Civil Court.

ii. The Courts below have failed to note that under the Act 1959, the supervision and administration of a temple is vested in a hereditary officials. Section 5 and 108 of the Act says that the Civil Court cannot entertain a suit.

iii.The Courts below have failed to note that against the order dated 06.04.1992 made in O.A.87 / 1990, an appeal is maintainable under Section 69 of the Act. Since the appeal could have been filed within a period of 60 days, in order to get over the period of limitation prescribed for filing the appeal, the plaintiffs have filed the above suit.

iv. The Courts below have failed too note that except the evidence of P.W.1, absolutely there is no iota of legal evidence to support the claim of plaintiffs. In the absence of any other independent evidence to corroborate the evidence of PW1, the relief sought for should not have been granted.

v. The Courts below have failed to note that the 2nd defendant has considered the matter in detail and passed the order dated 06.04.1992 (Ex.A1). Mere reading of the order dated 06.04.1992 would show that except the 1st defendant no one would have any claim over the hereditary trusteeship.

vi. The Courts below have failed to note that there are ample evidence to show that the name of Edayaraman is found in the IFR extract, thereafter his son by name Varadha Gonar was holding the post of hereditary trustee. After that the 1st defendant was declared as the hereditary trustee.”

4. For the purpose of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are ranked in the suit.

5. The second appeal was admitted by this Court on 17.12.2008, on the following Substantial Questions of Law.

"(a) Whether the Courts below are correct in law in entertaining the suit against an order made under Se