S SUBRAMANIA PILLAI Vs. VELININTRA VINAYAGAR SOOLAPIDARI AMMAN SUDALAI MADASWAMY MUDIVILANKU AMMAN KANKAYAN KANDAN SASTHA DEITY VARIYOOR KANNIYAKUMARI VILLAGE AGASTEESWARAM TALUK KANNIYAKUMARI DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals have been filed by the same person who was the plaintiff in O.S. No. 99 of 1975 and the defendant in O.S. No. 54 of 1975 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Nagercoil. There is a temple group or complex with the deities of Velinintra Vinayagar, Soolapidari Amman, Sudalamadan and other deities in Variyoor, Kanyakumari village, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District. This is a temple which has been in existence for quite some time. One Kuttalalingam Pillai and six others endowed certain properties to this temple for offering daily neivedyam and for lighting in front of the several deities. The first document was executed on 3rd January, 1911, which was followed by three other documents, two of which were executed on 20th September, 1921 and the other on the next day, namely 21st September, 1921. The said Kuttala-lingam Pillai who executed the document dated 3rd January, 1911, marked as Exhibit A-1 along with others was managing the affairs of the trust for several years. On his death, his junior son Sivaramalingam Pillai was managing the said properties for several years. Thereafter the father of Subramania Pillai who is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 99 of 1975 and the defendant in O.S. No. 54 of 1975 was the trustee. Thereafter the plaintiff (Subramania Pillai) claimed to have been in management of the suit properties. His case in the plaint in O.S. No. 99 of 1975 was that the trust was a denominational trust of which the Saivait Vellalas of Variyoor were the beneficiaries and that he was the hereditary trustee from the year 1951. It is further stated in the plaint that the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department appointed defendants 1 to 3 in O.S. No. 99 of 1975 as trustees and that they began to interfere with the plaintiff's management of the trust properties. The plaintiff (Subramania Pillai) claimed that he was the trustee of the properties and that defendants 1 to 3 herein had no right to interfere with his management. Defendants 1 to 3 in their joint written statement denied the plaintiff's claim that he was a hereditary trustee. According to them, his right as hereditary trustee had been rejected by the authorities of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. It was also pointed out that the fact that the plaintiff was not the hereditary trustee had also been affirmed in other proceedings. The other defendants herein were lessees of the properties belonging to the trust. Defendants 1 to 3 herein further claimed that they had been elected as trustees and that they were entitled to be in possession. They therefore resisted the suit for declaration that the plaintiff was the trustee of the suit institution and for an injunction restraining them and others from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff herein. The other defendants alleged that they were paying the rent regularly to the trust and that there was no cause of action against them.

(2.) DEFENDANTS 12, 29, 30, 31 and 32 in O.S. No. 99 of 1975 in their joint written statement supported the case of the plaintiff herein.

(3.) O.S. No. 54 of 1975 was filed by the three persons who are defendants in O.S. No. 99 of 1975. They filed the suit for a declaration that they were the duly elected trustees of the suit trust, and prayed for an injunction restraining the defendant herein (Subramania Pillai) from interfering with their administration of the trust and its properties. The case set out by them in the plaint was that there was a public trust in relation to the five temples at Variyoor. The trust was for the benefit of Saivait Vellalas residing in the village. The plaintiffs herein and one Chudala Pillai were acting as trustees from 10th December, 1962, as they had been appointed by the Area Committee under the Tamil Nadu Act XXII of 1969. The defendant's (Subramania Pillai) proceedings in relation to the said appointment having become unsuccessful, they stated that the defendant herein had absolutely no right as a hereditary trustee and that the defendant should not interfere with their possession of the temple and its properties.