V P DASARATHA NAICKER Vs. PERUMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is focused as against the judgment and decree dated 13.4.1999 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvellor in O.S.No.167 of 1989, which was one for declaring the plaintiffs as the Hereditary Trustees of the suit temples.

(2.) NIGGARD and bereft of details, the case of the plaintiffs as stood exposited from the plaint could succinctly and briefly be set out thus:The plaintiffs earlier approached the Deputy Commissioner under the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act for declaring them as Hereditary Trustees of the group of temples in Valasaivettikadu Village as found described in the schedule of the plaint. However, the Deputy Commissioner rejected their claim as Hereditary Trustees by its order dated 14.11.1986 whereupon the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments was approached by filing appeal by the plaintiffs. However, the Commissioner also by its order dated 25.5.1989 dismissed the appeal with the observation that it is open for the plaintiffs to approach the authorities under Section 64(1) of the Act if so advised whereupon the plaintiffs filed a statutory suit in O.S. No.167 of 1989 seeking the following relief- declaring that the plaintiffs are the hereditary trustees of the suit temples, by setting aside the order dated 14.11.1986 by Deputy Commissioner in O.A. No.18 of 1981 and the A.P.89 of 1987 dated 25.5.1989 by the Commissioner and confirm the right of the plaintiffs in the suit item.The suit temples belong to the plaintiffs or 9 pangudharas of Vanniya Community.

(3.) EXHIBITS A-2 and A-3 do not refer to the vesting of the Management on Pangudharas. One Lakshmana Naicker was in management of the temples from 1.10.1977 to 30.9.1978. However, the genealogy is found defective. There is no indication that any hereditary trusteeship is being adhered to in managing the suit temples.Accordingly, the defendants 4 and 5 prayed for the dismissal of the suit.