T K MANNANGATTI Vs. POONGAVANAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred against the judgment of Sub-Court. Villupuram passed in O.S. No. 12 of 1985 which is a suit to set aside the order of the Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras, the fifth defendant herein dated 3.9.84 passed in A.P. No. 99 of 1983 and for a declaration that the office of the trusteeship of the suit temples is hereditary. The plaintiff is the appellant.

(2.) THE plaint averments can be summarised. THE plaintiff is the hereditary trustee of three temples dedicated to Pillaiyar, Pidari Amman and Ammachiar at Thanikalampattu village, Tirukoilur Taluk. THEy are all ancient temples and have been in the management of the plaintiff and his ancestors for more than three generations. THE plaintiff and his ancestors have been rendering service as Pusaris and also as hereditary trustees for the temples. A genealogical table showing the family tree of the plaintiff and his ancestors is appended to the plaint. Prior to the year 1980, Chinnathu Kounder was the trustee and Pusari of the suit temples and he died leaving his five sons, Ulakka Kounder, Kutturaju Kounder, Rama Kounder, Narayana Kounder and Ramanathan. After the death of Chinnathu Kounder, his five sons administered the temples jointly and they were functioning as hereditary Pusaris cum trustees. THE devolution of Trusteeship of the suit temples has passed on to the legal heirs of Chinnathu Kounder, the first from father to son and to grandsons in an unbroken line of succession. THE plaintiff is therefore the present hereditary trustee of the three temples aforesaid. THE suit temples have got a total extent of 2.75 acres of inam land and the plaintiff is in management of the land and the income is utilised for defraying the day-to-day expenses and for the administration of the temples. Thus, the office of the trusteeship of the three temples is hereditary in nature. THE plaintiff filed an application in O.A. No. 31 of 1982 before the fourth defendant under Section 63 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act for declaration that the office of Trusteeship of the suit temples is hereditary impleading the defendants 1 to 3 who have been appointed as non-hereditary trustees by the Assistant Commissioner without any enquiry. THE fourth defendant dismissed the application on 30.9.1983 and an appeal was preferred before the fifth defendant in A.P. No. 99 of 1983 and it was dismissed by the fifth defendant on 3.9.1984. THErefore, the plaintiff has filed the suit under Section 70 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act.

(3.) POINT 1: The suit temples are Sri Pillaiyar, Amman and Ammachiyar temples in Thanikalam Pattu village and according to the plaintiff, he and his ancestors for more than three generations have been in the management of the temples as hereditary trustees cum Pusaris and he prays for a declaration to declare the office of the trusteeship as hereditary. The defendants 1 to 3 are the persons appointed as trustees by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department and the defendants 4 and 5 are the Deputy commissioner and Commissioner of the department. The defendants deny the claim of the plaintiff and contend that there is no proof to show that the suit temples were managed by the ancestors of the plaintiff as contended by him. The onus is on the plaintiff to prove that he and his ancestors functioned as trustees of the suit temples for more than three generations. Ex.A1 is the-extract of the Inam Fair Register in T.D. No. 1094 dated 12-2-1862 for Pillaiyar temple and T.D. No. 1095 dated 12.2.1862 for Pidari temple and T.D. No. 1096 dated 12.2.1862 for Ammachiyar temple. In Ex.A1, one Narayana Kounder as worshipper for Pillaiyar temple in T.D. No. 1094 and as worshipper for Pidari temple in T.D. No. 1095 and one Ramanathan as worshipper for Ammachiyar temple in T.D. No. 1096 has been referred. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of the B Register prepared in the year 1959 and the names of the suit temples alone have been mentioned in it and the name of the trustee or manager of those temples was not mentioned. Ex.A4 is the certified copy of the Settlement Register of the year 1960 and in that also the suit temples have been mentioned by their names and the name of the trustee was not referred. Ex.A5 is the order of the Settlement Tahsildar under Minor Inams Abolition Act 30 of 1963 and in that, Ryotwari Pattas had been granted to all the three temples represented by the Manager for the time being. The plaintiff has not produced the Inam Title Deeds which would establish the management at the time of confirmation of the grant and in the exhibits referred to above, the name of the trustee or manager of the suit temples was not mentioned.