KARUPPA ODAYAR Vs. A MARUDA MUTHIRIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals have been preferred against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.21 of 1982 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli dated 27.9.1985. The second defendant in the suit has preferred A.S.No.455 of 1986 and the first defendant has preferred A.S.No.157 of 1990.

(2.) RESPONDENTS in these two appeals namely Maruda Muthiriar and Kandasami as plaintiffs have filed the suit for setting aside the order passed by the first defendant, the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Madras in A.P.No.114 of 1978 dated 18.7.1981 and also for a declaration that the plaintiffs are the hereditary trustees of Arulmigu Elliamman and Pidari Amman temples situated in Arivayur village in Trichy Taluk in Trichy District, The temples Elliamman and Pidariamman were established even about 200 years prior to the suit. The administration of the said temples have been, from time immemorial, vested with the predecessors of the plaintiffs by succession. The administration of the said temples was always in the hands of hereditary trustees, The plaintiffs have produced a genealogy to show that their predecessors have been in management of the temple affairs as hereditary trustees for more than 150 years in the past. The temples themselves were established by the predecessors of the plaintiffs and their predecessors have been in management of the affairs of the temples as hereditary trustees. One Periyanna Muthiriyar and Kasturi Naik, who were the predecessors of the plaintiffs were previously trustees of the said temples, Periyanna Muthiriyar died in 1930 leaving his two sons viz., Annavi Muthiriyar and Parimalam Muthiriyar. Annavi Muthiriyar died in 1937 leaving his four sons, while Parimalam Muthiriyar died in the year 1935 leaving his only son. The first plaintiff is the eldest son of Annavi Muthiriyar and he was in management of the affairs of the temple as hereditary trustee. Other brothers have consented to his acting as trustee. These was also no objection for Pichaikkuppudiayar son of Kasturi Naik acting as hereditary trustee. The other brother also was in joint management of the temple as hereditary trustee. One Pitchaikuppudiayar was acting as trustee along with the first plaintiffs father Annavi Muthiriyar, Pitchikuppudiyar, Athanna Udayar, Manikara Udyar and Thiruvenkadam were all hereditary trustees who died leaving being their legal heirs. Athanappa Udayar married three wives and Kandasamy, the second plaintiff is the son born to the third wife. The first two wives have no issues. Manikara Udayar died in 1964 and he was only in management of the temple for some time. He had two wives and Pitchai Udayar and Kannusamy are his legal heirs. They have also not claimed any rights to be in management of the suit temples. The suit temples are owning lands to the extent of 19.20 acres which include nanja and punja lands. The annual income of suit temples are owning lands to the extent of 19.20 acres which include nanja and punja lands. The annual income of suit temples was Rs.2,000. Most of the lands are dry lands with no source of irrigation. Temples are situated in poromboke land. The income from the property is not sufficient to maintain the temples. Hereditary trustees used to appoint ?poojari? to perform poojas in the temples. Apart from the plaintiffs, no other persons were in possession or in management of the temple for the post 150 years. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration that the plaintiffs are the hereditary trustees entitled to be in management of the suit temples. The Joint Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Trichy has not so for appointed any persons as trustees for the two temples. While so, the second defendant tried to interfere with the management, of the temples which made the plaintiffs to file a petition before the Deputy Commissioner in O.A.No.107 of 1975 for declaration that the plaintiffs are the hereditary trustees for the suit temples. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the said petition by the order dated 29.9.1977. Thereafter, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal in O.A.No.114 of 1978 before the first respondent, the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Madras who has also dismissed the appeal without considering the merits of the plaintiffs case. The order is not valid and is liable to be set aside. Hence the suit.

(3.) AGGRIEVED at the said finding given by the learned Subordinate Judge, both the defendants have preferred appeals as stated above.