JUDGMENT : 1. These appeals arise from a suit instituted by two persons for a declaration that Arulmighu Kannanur Mariamman Temple situated in Tharamangalam village is a denominational temple entitled to the protection of Article 26 of the Constitution of India. It was further claimed in the suit that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (the 'Act') could only be applied subject to the constitutional rights as recognised by Section 107 of the Act. It was also prayed that the authorities under the Act be restrained from interfering with the management of the said temple by the religious denomination. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court. The lower Appellate Court reversed the findings of the Trial Court and decreed the suit, holding that the temple was established and being managed by the denominational community. The High Court reversed the findings of the lower Appellate Court and dismissed the suit. These appeals by way of special leave are against the judgment of the High Court. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. A preliminary point was raised before the High Court to the effect that the suit having been filed by two individuals putting forward the rights of the community, it would not be maintainable without complying with the provisions of Order 1, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code. The High Court referred to plethora of case law and came to the conclusion that the suit was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed for non-compliance of the provisions of Order 1, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code. We see no ground to interfere with the said finding reached by the High Court. We uphold the same. 3. The High Court, in order to settle the controversy between the parties, further went into merits of the case. We have been taken through the detailed, clear and well-reasoned judgment of the learned single Judge of the High Court. The learned single Judge, relying upon various judgments of this Court, reached the conclusion that the temple was not set up by any religious denomination. According to the learned Judge, there was no evidence on record to show that the temple was established by and for the benefit of a religious denomination. The learned single Judge, relying upon various judgments of this Court, reached the conclusion that the temple was not set up by any religious denomination. According to the learned Judge, there was no evidence on record to show that the temple was established by and for the benefit of a religious denomination. On the contrary, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the temple was a public temple governed by the provisions of the Act. We see no ground to interfere. We agree with the reasoning and the conclusions reached by the learned single Judge in his judgment. The appeals are dismissed. No costs. C. A. Nos. 890/1992 and 2190/1993 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have been taken through the judgment of the High Court. The High Court has found that the educational institutions have not been established by any religious denomination. We see no ground to interfere with the High Court judgment, We agree with the reasoning and the conclusions reached therein. The appeals are dismissed. No costs. C. A. No. 6146 of 1990 5. We have dismissed C. A. Nos. 1820-21/1987. This appeal has been tagged to be heard along with the said appeals. For the reasons given by us in the C. A. Nos. 1820-21/1987, we see no ground to interfere with the judgment of the High Court under appeal. The appeal is dismissed with no costs. Appeal dismissed.