Rajendra Babu, J. - (1.) This appeal by special leave is against the judgment in Letters Patent Appeal No. 206 of 1992 on the file of the High Court of Madras. The question raised in this appeal is as to whether the temples of the Madurai Veerasami and 18 Padi Karupannasami Temple are 'private temples' of the appellants' family or they belong to the second respondent-temple Meenakshi Sundereswarar Temple, Madurai or a sub-temple belonging to it as claimed by respondents.
(2.) The appellants claim that the two shrines of Madurai Veerasami and 18 Padi Karupannasami Temple are situate in a premises bearing Door No. 52, East Chitrai Street, Madurai, that adjoining these temples are two shops in premises bearing Door Nos. 51 and 53; that they are 'private temples' and are in their possession and enjoyment as such; that though they were situate in 'paramboke' lands of the Government, these lands on which the temple situate are recognised as private lands of the appellants in the proeedings of the Collector dated 1-9-1941 and even earlier, that the origin of the temple is lost in antiquity; that as far as they could trace the records their great grand mother Meenakshi Ayi had come to be in the possession and enjoyment of the temple through her father who was a Pujari of the temple from about 100 years now; that the litigation raised as early as in 1884 ended in her favour that there are several documents to show that she constructed a pucca building which was only thatched sheds by raising loans and was in possession and enjoyment of them as her private temples; that even now the members of the appellants alone worship the deities in the temples.
(3.) The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Madras, issued a notice on 26-2-1971 calling upon the appellants to get a declaration that the suit temple is a 'private temple' as the appellants resisted his move to treat it as a 'public temple'. The appellants filed an application in O.A. No. 23 of 1971 before the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (AIM) Department, Madurai under S. 63(a) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for a declaration that the temple in question is a 'private temple' of the appellants' family. The second respondent was impleaded on its application and contended that these temples formed part of it and it is one of its subsidiary temples. The Deputy Commissioner by an order made on 24-1-1973 allowed the application holding that the temple is a 'private temple' of the appellants. Against that order second respondent preferred an appeal under S. 69 of the Act and the first respondent, after hearing both the parties, made an order on 24-11-1977 allowing the appeal by holding that the temple in question belonged to the second respondent and is a 'public temple'. Against that order, the appellants filed a suit in O.S. No. 267 of 1978 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Madurai, as provided under S. 70 of the Act, inter alia, seeking to grant a declaration that the suit temple is a 'private temple' of the appellants and for an injunction to restrain the respondents to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the temple. After trial the Subordinate Judge decreed the suit holding the suit temple is a 'private temple' of the appellants. Against that judgment two appeals were preferred in A.S. No. 554 of 1982 and A.S. No. 56 of 1984 on the file of the High Court of Madras. The High Court by order dated 6-11-1992 allowed both the appeals on the ground that firstly the suit was not maintainable for want of issue of a notice and secondly on merits, it was held that the suit temple is a 'public temple' belonging to the second respondent. Against the said judgment and decree the Letters Patent Appeal No. 206 of 1992 was filed. The said appeal has now been dismissed holding that the temple in question is a 'public temple' forming part of the second respondent temple and in a suit of the present nature filed under S.70 of the Act a notice under S.80 Civil Procedure Code was not required.;