LOGANATHA NAICKER Vs. COMMISSIONER H R AND CE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed against the Judgment and decree in O. S. No. 260 of 1994 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur. The appellants are the plaintiffs 2,4,7 to 9 in O. S. No. 260 of 1994. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs challenging the order passed in A. P. No. 85 of 1988 dated 31. 5. 1994 by the first defendant/the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiffs in a nutshell is that as Hereditary Trustees, they are administering the affairs of the temple by name Sri Srinivasa Perumal at Koppur Village, Tiruvallur Taluk, Chengai M. G. R. District and that the said temple belongs to the people belonging to Vanniyar Caste. According to the plaintiffs, as per Section 6 (11) and 63 (b) of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act 22 of 1959 (Hereinafter referred to as "act"), the above said temple at Koppur belongs to the plaintiffs' family who were three in number originally later swelled into nine comprising of three hundred families. It is further case of the plaintiffs that as per Section 6 (11) of the Act, the plaintiffs are appointed as Hereditary Trustees and that the plaintiffs are maintaining the temple and they bear their electricity expenses, and daily pooja expenses etc. To declare the plaintiffs as the Hereditary Trustees, the plaintiffs have filed O. A. No. 9 of 1985 before the second defendant/the Deputy Commissioner, HR andce Administration Department, Nungambakkam High Road, Madras-34 but the same was dismissed. There is no property for the temple. Aggrieved by the findings of the second defendant/the Deputy Commissioner, HR and CE Department in O. S. No. 9 of 1985 , the plaintiffs have preferred an appeal in A. P. No. 85 of 1988 before the first defendant/commissioner, HR and CE Department which was also decided against the plaintiffs. Challenging the said order of the first defendant /commissioner, HR andce Department in A. P. No. 85 of 1988, the plaintiffs have preferred the suit in O. S. No. 260 of 1994.

(3.) THE second defendant in his written statement would contend that the plaintiffs are the Hereditary Trustees as defined under Section 6 (11) of the Act. The suit temple is a public temple. The petition filed by the plaintiffs to declare them as Hereditary Trustees before the second defendant/deputy Commissioner, HR and CE Department was dismissed on 20. 6. 1988. An appeal preferred by the plaintiffs against the said finding was also dismissed by the first defendant/the Commissioner, HR andce Department in A. P. No. 85 of 1988 on 31. 5. 1994. The plaintiffs have failed to produce any evidence to show that they are the Hereditary Trustees of the suit temple as required under Section 63 of the Act. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.