CHINNASAMI Vs. BALASUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 1 to 3 in O.S. 63/80 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Namkkal are the appellants in the above appeal. The first respondent herein (since deceased) has filed the said suit, 1 to declare that the suit temple is not a public temple; 2 holding that the plaintiff is the hereditary trustee of the suit temple; 3 setting aside the order of the fourth defendant dt.10.3.75 in A.P.6/75 by which the order of the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Coimbatore dt.20.9.73 in O.A.63/72 and the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Salem, dt.28.4.72 appointing the defendants 1 to 3 as the non -hereditary trustees to the suit temple have been wrongly confirmed, and 4 directing the defendants to pay the plaintiff the costs of the suit.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is briefly stated hereunder : -

(3.) The third defendant filed written -statement wherein it is contended that the said Vallaba Vinayagar Temple at Kuchipalayam, in Pandamangalam is not a private temple. Not a scrap of paper has been produced to show that the temple was built by one Munia Kandar son of Sellandi Kandar. There is no proof to show that how they are related to the plaintiff. No genealogy has been filed to trace die relationship of the plaintiff and the said Munia Kandar. The temple is situated in Nandavanam and it is a temple poromboke and is also a village site Natham Poromboke. The plaintiff must prove that the general body appointed the Managing trustee all these years. The document dt.6.11.36 does not advance the case of the plaintiff any further. It is also contended that after the death of Pattakkar Kandar the third defendant was selected as Manager of the temple. Further, the plaintiff is not so rich enough to spend money towards expenses of the temple. The public had always control over the management and affairs of the temple. A reading of the document dt.6.11.36 would clearly prove that public have got every right towards, the management of the temple and its affairs. The documents that have been produced on the side of the plaintiff are self serving documents and got up for the purpose of the suit. The Deputy Commissioner has correctly appreciated the case and rightly dismissed the application of the plaintiff which has also been dismissed by the Commissioner. The temple is already under the jurisdiction of the Department and hence the petition under Sec. 63 (a) of the Act is not maintainable. With these averments he prayed for dismissal of the suit.