CHINNA ANDI PANDARAM Vs. THE COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS (ADMN.) DEPARTMENT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the second plaintiff Chinna Andi Pandaram against the judgment and decree dated 13th day of August, 1975 in O. S. No. 305 of 1970 on the file of the Court of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge of Salem, dismissing the suit filed by him along with one Komara Pandaram alias Komarandi Pandaram for declaration that they are the hereditary trustees of the Vinayagar, Mari Amman and Pidari Amman temples of Laddivadi village, after setting aside the order of the Commissioner, H R. and C. E. Board, in Appeal No. 63 of 1967 on his file and for a declaration that they are entitled to enjoy the suit properties hereditarily and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 2 to 7, the trustees appointed by the H. R. and C. E. Board, from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.

(2.) The case of the plaintiffs as put forward by them in the plaint is that Survey No. 111/2 of Laddivadi village was granted as devadayam to the Vinayagar temple at Laddivadi under title deed No. 695, that S No. 240 of that village was granted as devadayam land in favour of Mari Amman and Pidari Amman temples at Laddivadi village as per title deed No. 696 and that the plaintiffs and their ancestors were in possession and enjoyment of these properties as poojaries -trustees of the temple for over 150 years. It is further alleged in the plaint that even at the time of the Inam Commission enquiry in 1863, the ancestors of the plaintiffs were found to be the persons enjoying the lands on behalf of the deity, that the pattas granted in 1880 c receipts are also to the same effect, that the management of the temples and its day -to day administration were carried on by the plaintiffs as hereditary trustees and that the Area Committee, Salem, by its resolution dated 25th January, 1965 appointed defendants 2 to 6 as non -hereditary trustees of these temples. The plaintiffs preferred revision against the resolution of the Area Committee and also filed an application under Sec. 63(6) of Madras Act (XXII of 1959), to the Deputy Commissioner, H. R. and C. E. in O. S. No. 7 of 1966 for a declaration that they are the hereditary trustees of the above temples. The case of the plaintiffs that they are the hereditary trustees of those temples was upheld by the Deputy Commissioner and thereafter they did not press the revision petition before the Commissioner. The defendants 2 to 6 who were aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner preferred Appeal No. 63 of 1967 to the Commissioner and the Commissioner allowed this appeal by his order dated 3rd January. 1970. It is further alleged in the plaint that the plaintiffs and their ancestors were in uninterrupted enjoyment of the temples and the suit properties for over 150 years and their hereditary right to be not only poojaries but also trustees of the temples cannot be questioned by any one so long as they render service to the temple. The suit lands were taken over by the Government under the Minor Inams Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act (XXX of 1963) in 1965. In that enquiry also, the Settlement Tahsildar recognised the plaintiffs as the hereditary poojaries and trustees. It is further stated in the plaint that the order of the Commissioner setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner is based on the ground that the villagers made some collections and payments in connection with some festivals and therefore they were in possession and management of the temple properties and that this finding is not correct. According to the plaintiffs, the temple being a public temple, the poojari or trustee cannot prevent the public spending some money during festivals and this will have no bearing on the question of hereditary trusteeship. According to the plaintiffs, as they were the hereditary poojaries and hence they were in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties in lieu of their service to the temple. It is also stated in the plaint that the defendants 2 to 6 are intern upon entering the suit properties after the order of the Commissioner and that they have no light to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the properties by the plaintiffs. The seventh defendant was subsequently appointed as a trustee.

(3.) On the other hand, the case of the first defendant the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras, as contended in the written statement is that his order is supported by oral and documentary evidence and is not liable to be set aside, that the Inam Commission did not find that the ancestors of the plaintiffs were the owners of the suit lands, nor these lands were given to the deities through the poojaries and that the plaintiffs or their ancestors are not found to be the hereditary trustees or managers of those temples. It is also contended that the Inam Fair Register only shows that the ancestors of the plaintiffs were poojaries and nothing else, that poojaries are different from trustees, that the possession and enjoyment of the suit lands by the ancestors of the plaintiffs was only as poojaries and that there is documentary evidence to prove that the plaintiffs and their ancestors were not managing the day to -day -affairs of the temple. According to the first defendant, the order of the Settlement Tahsildar recognising the plaintiffs as trustees was passed without notice to defendants 2 to 6 and he is not the competent authority to decide this question. The order of the Deputy Commissioner, H. R. and C. E., according to the first defendant, having been set aside, cannot be read as part of the plaint. According to the first defendant, there is sufficient documentary evidence to prove that the villagers were in complete management and control of the temple, that the entry in column 7 of the Inam Statement shows that the lands were granted for the purpose of pooja and for Sukrawara Kattalai and Somawara Kattalai and also as Pillayar Manyam and Pidari Amman Manyam. It is further contended by the first defendant that the ancestors of the plaintiffs were never described as trustees and much less as hereditary trustees. According to the first defendant, the documents produced by the villagers before him established that the temples were managed by the villagers who paid salaries to the plaintiffs' ancestors on annual basis and that these accounts are 45 years old. According to the first defendant, the plaintiffs have signed these entries The classification of the land as devadayam shows that the grant was to the deities and that the plaintiffs and their ancestors were only poojaries and were not managing the temples as hereditary trustee.