- (1.)THE plaintiff, who is unsuccessful before the trial Court, is the appellant in this appeal. Pending the suit the first defendant died and the third defendant had been impleaded as his legal heir. This appeal which was originally dismissed for non-prosecution but restored, came up for hearing.
(2.)HEARD Mr.R.N.Kothandaraman, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.Ashok Viswanathan, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. For convenience, the parties shall be referred as arrayed before the trial Court.
The plaintiff instituted the suit praying for a declaration that the Land Building and premises described in the suit "A" Schedule belong absolutely to Sayarakshai Kattalai of Neeladayakshiamman Temple and uphold its title thereof, direct the 2nd defendant or defendants to deliver possession of the "A" schedule premises, direct the 2nd defendant or defendants to pay past and future mesne profits, restrain the defendants from taking possession of suit "A" Schedule building and premises and for costs.

According to the plaintiff, Sayarakshai Kattalai and Ardhajama Kattalai are among the specified endowments attached to Arulmigu Kayaroganaswamy and Neeladayakshiamman Temple and they are all public religious institutions governed by the provisions of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The Executive Officer of the said temple is authorised and entitled to represent the temple as well as the Kattalai attached thereof and to sue on behalf of the Kattalai.

The Kattalai are as ancient as the temple and six kala poojas are performed in the temple. The six kala poojas include Sayarakshai Kalam as well as Ardhajama. The suit properties have been dedicated to and endowed for sayarakshai service in the said temple. Hence, it is a kattalai attached to the temple. Although there is no deed of dedication as such, yet there are clinching materials to establish that the property has been endowed for the performance of Kattalai. The granite embedded plaque fixed on the suit property would show dedication and endowment of the said property for the performance of Kattalai attached to the plaintiff temple. Even, father of the 2nd defendant executed a lease deed while accepting that the properties as dedicated and endowed for the performance of the sayarakshai kattalai. The registration copies of the said lease deed are dated 22.4.1917, 8.1.1933. As seen from the said documents, the property had been dedicated and endowed for the purpose of performance of kattalai and it is an absolute and total dedication. On the death of Rangabashyam Naidu, his only son, the 2nd defendant continued to occupy the said "A" schedule buildings as a tenant thereof.

The first defendant while claiming to be the owner of the plaint "A" schedule property, instituted R.C.O.P. No.5 of 1980 against the 2nd defendant seeking for eviction on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rents. The 2nd defendant resisted the eviction petition contending that it is not the property of the first defendant, but it is an endowed property attached to the specific kattalai. It was however contended that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction as its property owned by the religious endowment. Overruling the objections, order of eviction had been passed, which order, according to the plaintiff had cast a cloud on the plaintiff's title to the suit property. Hence, the suit.

(3.)ACCORDING to the plaintiff, neither the first defendant nor the 2nd defendant have any title or right to the plaint "A" schedule. The sayarakshai kattalai has no other property or income excepting the "A" schedule property. The plaintiff temple issued a notice and thereafter had filed the present suit. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff produced two documents, namely, order of appointment of Executive Officer for the plaintiff temple and the proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner dated 7.1.1981.
The first defendant filed a written statement contending that the suit claim is false, frivolous and only at the instigation of the tenant, the 2nd defendant, the suit has been filed by the Executive Officer, who is simply a puppet in his hands. There are no bona fides. The 2nd defendant had caused the suit to be filed with a view to perpetuate his possession even after passing of order of eviction. The plaintiff had come out with the present suit to support the false claim of the 2nd defendant by introducing a theory of various kattalais, as if it is an endowment or a religious institution.

It is pointed out that it is for the plaintiff to move the concerned Deputy Commissioner and seek for a declaration that the suit properties are endowed and no suit is maintainable. The Civil Court, according to the defendants, has no jurisdiction to give a finding in respect of the alleged nature of the trust. The present suit is barred by the provisions of Sec.108 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The plaintiff cannot maintain the suit and the plaintiff is not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for without exhausting the remedies provided under Secs.63 and 64 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act.