DURGAI LAKSHMI KALYANA Vs. IDOLS OF ARULMIGU SIDDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal Suit is filed against the judgment and decree, dtd. 11/6/2008 passed by the learned VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.4769 of 2006, in and by which, the suit filed by the plaintiff, to declare that the plaintiff temple will be entitled to manage and administer the Durgai Lakshmi Kalyana Mandapam and to direct the defendants to quit and deliver vacant possession of the schedule properties and for verifying the accounts and rents, was decreed by the Trial Court.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that, it is one of the oldest temple situated at No.8, Manali Chinniah Garden II Street, Old Washermanpet, Chennai - 600 021. For the maintenance of the temple, the then Trustees, with the help of the public and collections made from the devotees, had put up a Kalyana Mandapam in the temple premises itself in the first floor as a specific endowment for the temple. The same is rented out for weddings and other functions and the income derived there from was utilised by the temple for its maintenance. The second defendant's father, D.Kandaswamy Chetty and one D.Munuswamy Chetty were declared as the Hereditary Trustees of the temple. Subsequently, by order, dtd. 12/12/1974, with the consent of the then Trustees, an Executive Officer was also appointed to be incharge of the day to day administration and properties of the temple. While so, the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., by order in O.A.No.37 of 1987, dtd. 27/2/1995, had declared that the said Kalyana Mandapam as a specific endowment within the meaning of Sec. 6(19) of The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The then Trustees of the temple namely, D.Kandaswamy Chettiar and D.Munuswamy Chettiar, had also filed O.A.No.34 of 1985 before the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., for a declaration that they are the founding Hereditary Trustees of the said Durgai Lakshmi Thirumana Mandapam and the same was dismissed by an order, dtd. 27/2/1995. After the death of the said D.Kandaswamy Chettiar, the second defendant was appointed as the Hereditary Trustee of the temple. In the place of the other Hereditary Trustee, D.Munuswamy Chettiar, the third defendant was appointed as the Hereditary Trustee of the temple. Being the Trustees, they also looked after the endowment attached to the temple. However, the collections made and the income derived from the said Kalyana Mandapam have not been accounted and the monies were not handed over to the temple and has been personally utilised by the said K.Jeevanandam and Govindarajulu. Therefore, the Executive Officer sent a communication, dtd. 20/10/2004 to the said K.Jeevanandam asking him to hand over all the documents and accounts relating to the Mandapam, but, however, the said K.Jeevanandam neither cared to reply nor handed over the charges. The Mandapam, at the time of filing of the suit, was deriving atleast a minimum of Rs.10,000.00 per month. Therefore, the suit was filed for declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to manage and administer the endowment more-fully described in the schedule and attached to the temple; secondly, directing the defendants to deliver vacant possession of the said Mandapam more-fully described in the schedule; to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to take accounts of the income by way of collection of rents from the suit property and the expenditure incurred and to arrive at the amounts due to the defendants by the plaintiff and to pass a decree against such sum which would be found due.

(3.) The second defendant, for himself and also representing the first defendant endowment, filed a written statement contesting the suit. It is their contention that the suit is not maintainable. The second defendant was residing separately and he did not know about the earlier proceedings initiated by his father. As a Hereditary Trustee, from the date of the death of his father, he has been managing the affairs of the said Kalyana Mandapam. As against the earlier order, denying the rights to his father, the second defendant has preferred appeal to the Commissioner and the same is pending. There is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the present suit.