MUTHUSWAMI GURUKKAL Vs. AIYASWAMI THEVAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent, Appeal is preferred against the judgment of Jagadisan, J., who confirmed the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, in O.S. No. 267 of 1956. The said suit was filed by the appellant for a declaration that he and defendants 6 to 12 (members of the family) are the hereditary trustees of three small temples, Sri Thiru Nandiswaraswami Temple, Sri Kailasanathar temple and Sri Selva Vinayakar temple in Sircar Kannadiputhur in Udamalpet taluk in Coimbatore Dt. and that the order of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, appointing defendants 1 to 5 as trustees is invalid and would not affect the rights of the plaintiff. On 20th December 1955, the Assistant Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board appointed defendants 1 to 5 as non -hereditary trustees. The plaintiff filed a petition under S. 57 -B of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner for a declaration that plaintiff and defendants 6 to 12 are the pujaris and hereditary trustees of the temples. That petition was rejected and an appeal before the Commissioner was equally unsuccessful. The present suit has been instituted to set aside the order of the Commissioner for the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments.

(2.) The documentary evidence in this case mainly consists of the Inam Fair Register Ex. A -1 and Exs. A -2 to A -4 of Sircar Kannadiputhur. The entries in the aforesaid document show that the devadayam was granted by the Palayagar of Madurai in favour of the three deities aforesaid and Subramania Gurukkal, admittedly an ancestor of the plaintiff, was acting as the pujari and managing and attending to the affairs of the temples. It is clear from the evidence that these three temples do not own any other property except the devadayam grants of a total extent of 6 acres in the village of Kannadiputhur. Both the learned Subordinate Judge, as well as Jagadisan, J., have found that, for a very long number of years, the plaintiff and his predecessors -in -title have been in possession and management of the properties functioning as trustees while at the same time performing the daily puja and also attending to the annual festivals. Evidence also is clear that none of the villagers took any interest in the affairs of the temples nor interested in any manner with the management of the temples and their affairs and the lands by the plaintiff and his predecessors -in -title for a very long number of years. In fact on this aspect of the matter both the trial Court as well as Jagadisan, J., had accepted the plaintiff's evidence. There is no satisfactory rebuttal evidence either. While discussing the evidence the learned Judge has summed up as follows:

(3.) In view of this the learned Judge held that the plaintiff has not made out his right to the trusteeship of the three temples in question.