Judgment : The plaintiffs are the appellants, 2. The averments in the plaint are as follows: The plaintiffs and their ancestors are and were the hereditary trustees-cum- poosaries of the suit temple. The suit lands are Devadayam Inam covered under the title deed No 320 and have been granted as service Inam in favour of the temple on 22. 1864. The predecessors of the plaintiff and subsequently plaintiffs continued to do pooja service in the temple. They have leased the lands and from the lease amount and from their common sources they were conducting poojas in the temple. The lessees have never done the pooja in the temple. The prcdecessors-in- interest of the plaintiffs Palanichamy Gounder one of the lessees sold a portion of the same to Subba Naicker father of defendants 3 to 5. Manyappa Thevar another lessee sold the remaining portion to Kaliana Gounder the second defendant. The patta has been granted in favour of the Deity by the Settlement Tahsildar. The villagers do not contribute any money for the expenses of poojas and festivals. The Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department has appointed one Perumal who has been appointed by the plaintiff for clearing the temple as the poosari of the same. He has also held that the plaintiffs are not the hereditary poosaries. The Commissioner has confirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner in his order in A.P. No.134 of 1978, dated 29. 1980. Hence the plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration that they are the hereditary trustees of the suit temple and for setting aside the order of the Commissioner conformity the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. 3. The first defendant viz., the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Administration Department, Madras, in his written statement contends as follows: As per the Inam Register, the ancestors of the plaintiffs were only worshipers and they are neither founders nor poosaries of the suit temple. The origin of the suit is not known. The lands were granted as Inam lands for the upkeep and maintenance of the temple and patta also stands in the name of the temple. The plaintiffs appear to have been doing poojas during a particular point of time and therefore the patta Has been issued through one of the present plaintiffs who has been described as present poojari. The lands were granted as Inam lands for the upkeep and maintenance of the temple and patta also stands in the name of the temple. The plaintiffs appear to have been doing poojas during a particular point of time and therefore the patta Has been issued through one of the present plaintiffs who has been described as present poojari. The plaintiffs and their’ predecessors in fact alienated the temple properties and have even abandoned the temple once for all and left the village. The temple had fallen to ruins and was in a dilapidated condition until some of the local residents have taken care and are doing poojas from out for their own contribution and collections from the public. The allegation that the plaintiffs have leased the lands to somebody and they were doing poojas from the income of the lands is false. The plaintiffs are admit-tedly not in possession of the properties. When the Inspector of the Department visited the suit temple in 1976. none of the plaintiffs were in !he village. He was informed that the plaintiffs have abandoned the temple and have left the village. The plaintiffs have come forward with the suit to get at the property. They are not entitled to the reliefs prayed for. The suit is therefore liable to be dismissed. 4. Defendants 2 to 4 have adopted the written statement of the first defendant. 5. On the above pleadings, the learned Sub Judge, Dindigul before whom the suit was tried, has held that the suit temple was not constructed by the plaintiffs ancestors, that they are not entitled to manage and do the poojas in the temple and consequently they are not entitled to the possession of the suit property also and dismissed the suit. 6. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiffs have come forward with this appeal. 7. The appellants have sought to set aside the order passed by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Madras in A.P. No.134 of 1978, dated 29. 6. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiffs have come forward with this appeal. 7. The appellants have sought to set aside the order passed by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Madras in A.P. No.134 of 1978, dated 29. 1980 contending that the suit temple has been consecrated by their predecessors and the properties also belong to the temple and they are doing the pooja in the temple hereditarily and that the Deputy Commissioner has appointed one Perumal who has been appointed by the plaintiffs for cleaning the temple as the poosari of the temple on the report of the inspector which is factually incorrect and the order of the Deputy Commissioner has been confirmed by the Commissioner. The finding of the Commissioner that the plaintiffs who are appellants before him have failed to establish that the suit temple was built by their predecessors-in-interest and they continued to be the hereditary trustee of the temple has been upheld by the learned Sub Judge, Dindigul on account of the failure of the plaintiffs to prove their contention by any documentary evidence or by acceptable oral evidence. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would argue that the ancestors of the plaintiffs did not anticipate any trouble and therefore, there were no documents which would establish that the temple has been built by the ancestors of the plaintiffs, that four witnesses have been examined on behalf of the plaintiffs and their evidence establishes that the suit temple has been built by the ancestors of the plaintiffs. The origin of the temple has not been spoken by any of the four witnesses examined on behalf of the temple. The evidence of P.Ws.l to 4 is only to the effect that they heard that their ancestors have constructed the temple about 200 years ago. Their evidence is only a hearsay evidence and it is not sufficient to hold that the ancestors have actually built the temple. Even assuming that the plaintiffs are not able to prove that the temple was built by the ancestors on account of the passing of time, it is to be noted that the plaintiffs are not even able to establish that the properties belonging to the temple were in the enjoyment of their ancestors or their ancestors have been performing the pooja in the suit temple hereditarily. Patta has been issued in savour of the temple through one of the ancestors of the plaintiffs describing him as the poojari. This patta alone cannot be sufficient to hold that the ancestors of the plaintiffs were actually the owners of the property. At the most, it can only show that he was performing the pooja when patta has been issued in the name of Idol. The claim of the appellants that they were administering the temple through their ancestors who were poojaries also, is not convincing since at the time of the inspection of the temple and properties by D.W.1, the Inspector, it has been found by him that the temple is in a dilapidated condition. The properties are in the possession of the defendants is not in dispute. Kist has been paid only by the defendants and not by any of the plaintiffs. To make thing worse, the plaintiffs were not even in the suit village to claim that they are the hereditary trustees of the suit temple and they are performing the poojas as well as administering the temple. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would argue that the appellants were administering the temple through another poojari and the fact that they were not in the village has no merits at all in order to reject the case of the plaintiffs. From this argument of the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs, we can infer that the appellants do not dispute that the poojas in the temple are not done by the plaintiffs. Only if the ‘trusteeship vested hereditarily in the family of the appellants and they are shown as performing the poojas as well as the administering the temple hereditarily, it can be stated that the plaintiffs are hereditary trustees of the suit temple. Actual, physical and personal service has to be rendered by the person who claims to be the hereditary trustee since it is not in dispute that this dedication of the property in favour of the temple is a service inam. The property dedicated in favour of the temple by means of a service inam, can be enjoyed by the person who does the service and persons who claim that they are performing the service through another person cannot claim any right over the property which has been granted by way of service inam. The property dedicated in favour of the temple by means of a service inam, can be enjoyed by the person who does the service and persons who claim that they are performing the service through another person cannot claim any right over the property which has been granted by way of service inam. Therefore, the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the fact that the plaintiffs were not in the village does not matter so long as the appellants were administering the temple through another poojari, is to be rejected. The fact that the administration was not run by the plaintiffs, pooja in the temple was not done by them, the temple had fallen to ruins and was in a dilapidated condition at the time of the inspection of the same by the Inspector and the plaintiffs have even left the suit village, would all go to show that the claim of the plaintiffs that they are the hereditary trustees in respect of the suit temple and the order of the Deputy Commissioner appointing a person as the Poojari of the temple is not a valid one, cannot be given any credence at all. In fact, the evidence or P.Ws. 1 to 4 which are to the effect that the villagers of Chinthalavadampatti have got a right of worship, prepare and offer pongal in the suit temple would indicate that it is a public temple and the plaintiffs cannot claim it as a private temple. It is more so, where they admit that the affairs of the temple are looked after from collections from the worshippers. Therefore, on a consideration of the materials placed before the trial court, the learned Subordinate fudge has rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff, are not entitled to set aside the order passed by the Commissioner and for declaration that they are the hereditary trustees of the suit temple and recover possession and there is nothing to interfere with the said finding of the learned subordinate Judge. 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs.