Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.) A Division Bench of the Madras High Court by the impugned judgment held that the respondent was entitled to hold office of trusteeship in Sri Lakshmi Hayavedhana Perumal Temple in Nanganallur, Saidaret Taluk as hereditary trustee. The Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment and the Deputy Commissioner, the appellants herein question correctness of the judgment.
(2.) Background facts giving rise to the present appeal need to be noted in some detail.
(3.) Respondent-Sabha filed an application under Section 63(b) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (in short Act), before the Deputy Commissioner (appellant No. 2 in the present appeal) for declaration that the Sabha is hereditary trustee of the religious institution. The application was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner. Since the dismissal was upheld by the Commissioner (the appellant No. 1 herein) against the rejection of the application, the respondent as plaintiff filed a statutory suit OS No. 257/1981 before Subordinate Judge, Chengleput. Present appellants as defendants took the stand that the suit temple is a public temple constructed out of the collections including collections from the members of the Sabha and the grant of funds from the Government, that it is not for the benefit of Sabha members only but for the benefit of the Hindu public at large, and thus the temple is one covered under Section 6(20) of the Act. The trial Court rejected the claim of the plaintiff by holding that it is not entitled to be declared as hereditary trustee of the suit temple. At the same time since the Sabha had initiated and taken all efforts to construct the temple and manage it in the interest of general worshipping public, it would be appropriate to have one or more of the representatives of the Sabha, in the Board of Trustees as the authorities may deem fit. Aggrieved by that the plaintiff preferred an appeal (AS No. 240/84) which was also dismissed by a learned single Judge of the Madras High Court. The learned Judge also highlighted the difference inherently inbuilt in the definition of hereditary trustee in Section 6(11) and trustee in Section 6(22) of the Act. Letters Patent Appeal was filed by the Sabha in L.P.A. No. 275/1995 which was allowed and the judgment therein is the subject-matter of challenge in the present appeal. The Division Bench in the High Court was of the view that the founder being the Sabha, the entire administration of the temple is vested in the Sabha only consisting of its office bearers and they alone are entitled to administer the temple and its properties.;