Judgment :- Sri Balasubramaniaswamy temple is situate at Andavarkuppam village, Ponneri Taluk Chengalpattu district. One Tirupurasundari Ammal was declared to be the hereditary trustee of the said temple as per the proceedings in A.S. No. 230 of 1890 on the file of District Court, Chengalpattu. The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board attempted to declare the temple as non-excepted one and purported to issue orders to the effect in or about 1934. The said Thirupurasundari Ammal filed O.P. No. 22 of 1934 on the file of District Court, Chengalpattu for a declaration that the trusteeship of the said temple was hereditary for her family and in those proceedings, it was held that she was the hereditary trustee of the suit temple and the Religious Endowments Board had no right to reopen the question whether the temple is a non excepted temple. 2. The said Thirupurasundari Ammal died on 7.2.1951, leaving behind her, five of her grandsons through her only daughter, Chenchammal. The names of the said grandsons are Shanmugha Gurukkal, Amruthamani Gurukkal, Arumugha Gurukkal, Rama Gurukkal and Rathnasabapathi Gurukkal. Of them, Amruthamani Gurukkal was ex communicated and Arumugha Gurukkal and Rama Gurukkal were dead. It appears that during her lifetime, Thirupurasundari Ammal did not exercise her hereditary trusteeship for sometime and none of her grandsons also appearing to be interested, the trusteeship of the said temple devolved on the shoulders of some person appointed to manage the temple by the Endowment Board. 3. One of the grandsons, namely, Rathnasabapathy gurukkal agitated before the various authorities under the Hindu Religious Endowments Board, for recognising him as heir of Thirupurasundari Ammal to succeed to the trusteeship of the said temple. His claim was rejected and eventually he also presented a petition to the minister for Religious Endowments, for his being recognised as a heir to the said Thirupurasundari Ammal to succeed to the trusteeship of the said temple. The petition so sent did not evoke any response from the Government. Consequently, he initiated writ proceedings before this Court for the avowed purpose of himself being recognised as a hereditary trustee of the said temple. The said writ proceeding was dismissed on 16.8.1962. The petition so sent did not evoke any response from the Government. Consequently, he initiated writ proceedings before this Court for the avowed purpose of himself being recognised as a hereditary trustee of the said temple. The said writ proceeding was dismissed on 16.8.1962. Thereafter, Rathnasabapathy Gurukkal, figuring as plaintiff, filed the statutory suit praying for the relief of declaration that he is the only legal heir entitled to succeed to the office of the hereditary trusteeship of the said temple, impleading the State of Madras represented by the Secretary of Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Madras. 9, the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras and the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras as defendants 1 to 3, which was taken on file in O.S. No. 4 of 1964 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu. 4. Defendants 1 to 3 resisted the suit claim, by the projection of manifold objections that Thirupurasundari Ammal was not at all declared to be the hereditary trustee of the said temple and consequently, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of declaration that he is the only legal hie to succeed to the office of the hereditary trusteeship. The suit, not having been filed within time schedule, as provided for under the various provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (f or short ‘the Act’) is barred by limitation. Besides, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to afford the relief prayed for. Top of all, the so called hereditary trusteeship rights had once and for all be abandoned. 5. Learned Subordinate Judge, on the materials placed before him, however dismissed the suit on 28.9.1965, upholding the contentions of the defendants. The aggrieved plaintiff preferred appeal in A.S. No. 517 of 1966 before this court. During the pendency of the said appeal, he took out two Civil Miscellaneous Petitions, being C.M.P. Nos. 1445 and 1446 of 1973 respectively praying for impleading his brothers as necessary parties to the suit and for amendment of the plaint, in the light of such impleading, besides seeking for permission to convert the statutory suit into a regular suit by paying necessary deficit court fee therefor. 6. This court disposed of the appeal and the aforesaid two C.M.Ps. by a common order dated 12.2.1973 and the operative portion of the order is to the following effect: “Accordingly, the two C.M.Ps. Nos. 6. This court disposed of the appeal and the aforesaid two C.M.Ps. by a common order dated 12.2.1973 and the operative portion of the order is to the following effect: “Accordingly, the two C.M.Ps. Nos. 1445 and 1446 of 1973 are ordered as prayed for. The appeal itself is allowed and the decree and judgment of the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Chingleput, dated 28th September, 1965 in O.S. No. 4 of 1964 are set aside and the suit is remanded for fresh disposal. There will be no order as to costs. The appellant will be entitled to a refund of the court fee paid on the memorandum of appeal.” 7. After remand, neither the plaintiff; nor defendants 1 to 3 raised any additional pleading. The brothers of the plaintiff, namely, Amruthamani Gurukkal and Shanmugha Gurukkal were impleaded as defendants 4 and 5. They filed a written statement recognising the claim of the plaintiff as heir to succeed Thirupurasundari Ammal and to the trusteeship of the said temple. Pending trial, Amruthamani Gurukkal died and his legal representatives namely defendants 6 to 10 had been pleaded. However, no additional issue was framed and no fresh evidence was let in, except marking of a copy of notice issued under S. 80 C.P.C. as Exhibit A. 30. 8. Learned Subordinate Judge, without understanding the effect of the remand order, appeared to have disposed of the suit by way of dismissal with costs, as if the said suit, even subsequent to the remand, was a statutory suit. The aggrieved plaintiff preferred appeal in A.S. No. 261 of 1978 on the file of District Court, Chengalpattu. Confounding confusions created by learned Subordinate Judge, as respects the nature and character of the suit still persisted during the course of the hearing of the appeal before learned District Judge, Chengalpattu and that perhaps was the reason for learned Government Pleader resorting to raise an argument that the appeal filed as such was not maintainable and if at all, such an appeal has to be filed before this court. Such a vociferous contention had been repelled by learned District Judge in stating the suit, after remand, became a regular suit under general law of the land and not a suit under the provisions of the Act. Such a vociferous contention had been repelled by learned District Judge in stating the suit, after remand, became a regular suit under general law of the land and not a suit under the provisions of the Act. In this view of the matter, learned District Judge framed the lone and sole point for consideration, which is reflected thus; “Whether the plaintiff is the only legal heir entitled to succeed to the office of the hereditary trusteeship of Sri Balasubramaniaswami Temple, Andavarkuppam village, Ponneri Taluk and whether defendants 1 to 3 have to be directed to recognise the plaintiff as such hereditary trustee”. Having framed such a point and taking into consideration the fact that the status of the office of the trusteeship of the said temple having been duly declared by a competent court of jurisdiction as early as 1890, as per the proceedings in A.S. No. 230 of 1890 and also the fact that the brothers of the plaintiff, not raising any objection to the claim of the plaintiff, granted the relief as prayed for in the suit, by finding the point so framed, in favour of the plaintiff, by stating that the non exercise of the trusteeship of the said temple by any of the heirs of Thirupurasundari Ammal is of no consequence. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants 1 to 3 resorted to the present action. 9. The facts of the case are so eloquent to speak for themselves that the trusteeship of the suit temple was hereditary for the family of Thirupurasundari Ammal, as demonstrated by the proceedings in A.S. No. 230 of 1890 on the file of District Court, Chengalpattu and latterly by the proceedings in C.P. No. 23 of 1934 on the file of District Court, Chengalpattu the relief claimed for in the suit is for the declaration that the plaintiff is the only legal heir entitled to succeed to the office of the hereditary trusteeship of the suit temple. Such a question cannot at all be decided by the authorities under the provisions of the Act; but a Civil Court alone is competent to deal with such a question. 10. Such a question cannot at all be decided by the authorities under the provisions of the Act; but a Civil Court alone is competent to deal with such a question. 10. Such a question came up for consideration in one of the decisions of this court in Aviyur Mariamman Temple v. T.N. Sundaramoorthy Pillai (1981)94 L.W. 375 wherein a learned Judge of this court said thus in paragraph 3 (page 376): “S. 63 of Act enables the Deputy Commissioner to enquiry into and decided as to “whether a trustee holds or held office as a hereditary trustee”. According to the learned counsel for the appellant that provision will enable the Deputy Commissioner to decide whether the plaintiff in the suit held office as a hereditary trustee and therefore, the decision of the Deputy Commissioner that the plaintiff was a hereditary trustee of the suit temple cannot be said to be outside the jurisdiction, and the contrary view taken by the lower appellate court cannot legally be sustained. However, it is by now well settled that the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner under S. 57(b) the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act of 1951 corresponding to S. 63(b) of the Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959 is confined to a decision whether a trustee holds or held office as a hereditary trustee, i.e., that decision should be in relation to the status of the office of trusteeship, namely, whether it is hereditary or not, and that it is not competent for the Deputy Commissioner to go into the further question as to who among the committing claimants is a hereditary trustee as such a matter is not covered by the above provisions. This is clear from the decisions in Krishnasami Raja v. Krishna Raja 79 L.W. 672 and Rangayya Gounder v. Karuppa Naicker 84 L.W. 137. In view of the above decisions with which I am in entire agreement, the question as to who as between the rival claimants is a hereditary trustee cannot be decided by the Deputy Commissioner under S. 63(b) of the Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959 and if such a decision had been rendered by him under Ex. A1 the same cannot bind the civil court and the civil court has to decide that question independently on the evidence adduced by the parties.” 11. A1 the same cannot bind the civil court and the civil court has to decide that question independently on the evidence adduced by the parties.” 11. The observations, as extracted above, are applicable, on all fours, to the facts of the instant case. The judgment and decree of learned District Judge, as such, cannot at all be said to be suffering from any serious error of fact or perverse appreciation of the materials available on record or any error of law, calling for interference. There is no question of law; much less any substantial question of law involved for further consideration in this second appeal. 12. Before parting with this appeal, I have to state that from the materials available on record, it appears that though court fee has been paid on the memorandum of appeal in such sum as would have been paid in a suit of civil nature under general law, yet requisite court fee did not appear to have been paid by amending the relevant column of the plaint, notwithstanding the fact that this court, by way of remand order, allowed the parties to amend the plaint in such a way as to make the suit as a regular suit under the general law and pay the requisite court fee therefor. It is but proper for the plaintiff to pay requisite court fee before ever he is to enforce the decree granted in his favour. 13. In view of what has been stated above, the Second Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed; but, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.