ASST COMMISSIONER Vs. RAJKUMAR MANRADIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal has been filed against the Judgement and Decree dtd. 23/5/2008 passed in A.S. No. 18 of 2006 on the file of the Fast Track Court No. 3, Dharapuram (Additional District and Sessions Court) insofar as confirming the Judgement and Decree dtd. 22/9/2004 passed in O.S. No. 97 of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Kangeyam and praying to set aside the same.

(2.) The Appellants are the defendants.

(3.) The plaintiff and his forefathers have been worshiping Shandiga Devi Amman idol kept inside a small room of their palace. It is the favorite deity of the plaintiff and his forefathers. For more than 200 years, the idol is kept inside a room in the palace. It is for the sole darshan and worship of the family members of Sarkarai Mandaradiar and no outsider had access to the said room where the idol is kept. There is no temple for the said idol. Even the place where the idol is kept is called as a temple, that is only for the sole benefit and darshan of Mandaradiar's family. There is no Pragaram, Hundiyal and it has no properties. So it does not come under the control of Endowment Department or under the purview of the provisions of Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 22 of 1959. The plaintiff's family and their forefathers are well reputed and respectable in Tamil Nadu. All of a sudden, the plaintiff received the suit proceedings in Na.Ka. No. 2987/99/A6 dtd. 3/4/2003 from the first defendant. It is stated in the proceedings that the Executive Officer of Arulmigu Subramania Swami Thirukkovil, Sivanmalai has been appointed as the fit person for Shandiga Devi Amman Thirukkovil and the plaintiff has been directed to handover charge to the fit person. The authorities exercising jurisdiction under the said Act, have no authority to interfere with the alleged temple and its worship and management by the plaintiff. The first defendant has no jurisdiction to appoint any fit person. It seems that there are some malafide intention on the part of the defendants and it was issued due to political pressure. Notice under Sec. 80 C.P.C. is not necessary since the suit is against the Endowment Board. The plaintiff filed a suit to declare that the order of appointment of 1 defendant in his proceedings in Na.Ka. No. 2987/99/A6 dtd. 3/4/2003 appointing the 2 defendant as the fit person of the suit temple is null and void and for permanent injunction.