Judgment :- The defendants in O.S. 153 of 1976 on the file of Sub-Court, Ramanathapuram at Madurai are the appellants in the above appeal. The respondents, plaintiffs in the said suit filed the same for declaration and permanent injunction. 2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows :- The suit temple has been managed out of the funds contributed by the regular worshippers belonging to the Nadar community. The said temple was never thrown open to any other community for worship. Poojaries are appointed from other community to perform pooja. The Nadar Grocery Merchants of Sivakasi were responsible for upkeep, progress and maintenance of the temple. The suit temple is being managed by the trustees appointed by the Sivakasi Grocery Merchants residing at Sivakasi belonging to Sivakasi Hindu Nadars. The expenses of the temple are met by donations and contributions made by Grocery Merchants from their Mahamai funds. The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department has uniformly accepted and recognised the suit temple as founded by the Grocery Merchants of Sivakasi Hindu Nadars. The plaintiffs submitted accounts to the Endowment authorities and they used to periodically inspect the same. The correspondence between the plaintiffs and the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department will go to show that the suit temple belong to Sivakasi Hindu Nadars residing at Sivakasi. 3. It is further averred that the suit temple is denominational temple belonging to Sivakasi Hindu Nadars and no member of public is allowed to worship. The Sivakasi Hindu Nadars have a Hindu temple belonging to Hindu community . So, they are by themselves Hindu religious denomination. The H.R. and C. E. Department have no right to interfere with the right of management of with regard to their appointment of trustees to the suit temple. The right to appoint trustees to the suit temple exclusively belongs to the Grocery Merchants belonging to Sivakasi Hindu Nadars. The 1st plaintiff was appointed as a trustee from 5-5-1949 onwards. Now the 3rd plaintiff and the 7th plaintiff were appointed as trustees by the Grocery Merchants. So, the plaintiffs 1, 3 and 7 are the trustees of the suit temple. The suit denominational temple viz., "Sri Sivasubramania Swamy Temple" at Sivakasi is entitled to the protection conferred by Article 26 of the Constitution of India and by Section 107 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. So, the plaintiffs 1, 3 and 7 are the trustees of the suit temple. The suit denominational temple viz., "Sri Sivasubramania Swamy Temple" at Sivakasi is entitled to the protection conferred by Article 26 of the Constitution of India and by Section 107 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Ramnad at Madurai sent a communication to the 1st plaintiff stating that he ceased to be the trustee of the suit temple and directed one K. Kandaswamy, Executive Officer of Viswanatha Koil, Sivakasi to take possession of the suit temple from the 1st plaintiff. The lst plaintiff without getting proper legal advice has assigned in form without bestowing any attention in the matter but they did not hand over any charge to the said Kandaswamy. The plaintiffs sent a notice to the defendants under Section 80, C.P.C. They filed the present suit in representative capacity under Order 1, Rule 8, C.P.C. 4. The 2nd defendant filed a written statement which was adopted by the lst defendant. The suit temple is not a denominational temple belonging to Hindu Nadars and Grocery Merchants among Hindu Nadars residing at Sivakasi. II was never founded and constructed by the plaintiffs community. The suit temple is an ancient public temple. The temple attracts on every day as well as on festival occasions, thousands of devotees irrespective of their castes. The suit temple is a public temple. There are public hundies in the said temple. The public used to pour money into the hundies. The budgets are sanctioned by the Department only. The accounts are subjected to audit and contribution and audit fees under Section 92 of the H. R. and C. E. Act. The 2nd defendant never accepted the suit temple, as a denominational temple belonging to the Hindu Nadars of Sivakasi. The plaintiffs are not entitled to protection under Article 26 of the Constitution of India read with Section 107 of the H.R. and C.E. Act. The Assistant Commissioner, appointed K. Kandaswamy, Executive Officer of Arulmigu Viswanathaswamy Temple at Sivakasi as a fit person and the lst plaintiff was duly informed about the fact. The lst plaintiff handover the charge on 9-6-1976 to the Fit person. The Assistant Commissioner, appointed K. Kandaswamy, Executive Officer of Arulmigu Viswanathaswamy Temple at Sivakasi as a fit person and the lst plaintiff was duly informed about the fact. The lst plaintiff handover the charge on 9-6-1976 to the Fit person. Because of the commissions and omissions during the office of the plaintiff, the plaintiffs are liable to be prosecuted under Section 11(3) of the Act 24 of 1976. With these averments, they prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. The 1st plaintiff was examined as P. W. 1 and the 6th plaintiff was examined as P.W.2. They also produced and marked Exs. A1 to.A.46 in support of their case. On the other hand, the defendants did not examine any one in support of their defence, However, they have marked Ex.B.1 to B.14 on their side. 6. The learned Subordinate Judge, after framing the necessary issues and in the light of the evidence available on record, dismissed the suit with costs. 7. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiffs filed an appeal in A.S. No. 1980 80 before the District Court, Ramanathapuram. The learned District Judge after framing the necessary points for consideration and after reappraising the whole evidence allowed the appeal and decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. 8. Against the decree of the lower appellate Court, the defendants filed the present appeal before this Court. While entertaining the Second Appeal, this Court has framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration:- (1) Whether Section 108 of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act does not bar a suit for declaration that a temple is a denominational temple? (2) Whether the relief claimed in the suit cannot be granted under Section 64(c) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act? and (3) Whether the plaintiffs/ respondents are not estopped from claiming the relief in the suit in view of their acceptance of appointment as trustees by the department? 9. In the light of the substantial questions of law framed earlier, Mr. K. Elango, learned Government Advocate submits that the lower appellate Court committed an error in decreeing the suit, when there is no clinching evidence in support of the plaintiffs' case. 9. In the light of the substantial questions of law framed earlier, Mr. K. Elango, learned Government Advocate submits that the lower appellate Court committed an error in decreeing the suit, when there is no clinching evidence in support of the plaintiffs' case. According to him, due to non-examination of the authors of Ex.A21 to A23 the same cannot be relied upon by the plaintiffs and the judgment of the lower appellate Court relying on those documents cannot be sustained. He also submits that after the receipt of Ex.B.1 inasmuch as no objection was taken by the plaintiffs, it cannot be contended that they are the exclusive owners ol the suit temple. On the other hand, Mr. T. R. Mani, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, plaintiffs after taking me to the specific findings of the courts below and in the light of the oral and documentary evidence, placed on the side of the plaintiffs submits that the suit temple is a denominational temple of the plaintiffs' community. He also submits that inasmuch as the lower appellate Court after analysing the entire oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the suit temple is a denominational temple of the plaintiffs' community based on the acceptable evidence, granted decree in favour of the plaintiffs, it is not possible for this Court to re-appraise the factual findings arrived by the lower appellate Court under Section 100 C.P.C. He also relied on many decisions in support of his contentions which I shall consider latter. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. 10. We have to consider whether the suit temple is a denominational temple of the plaintiffs' community as commended by the plaintiffs and whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants; in the administration of the said temple. Inasmuch as the plaintiffs have made a claim that the suit temple is a denominational temple belonging to their community, it is but proper that they have to specifically allege and prove their case. The perusal of the plaint shows that the plaintiffs have alleged in the plaint that the suit temple was originally founded and constructed by Hindu Nadars and Grocery Merchants belonging to the Hindu Nadars. They also alleged that the suit temple i.e. Sri Sivasubramania Swamy Temple is a denominational temple belonging to Sivakasi Hindu Nadar and no member of public is allowed to worship. They also alleged that the suit temple i.e. Sri Sivasubramania Swamy Temple is a denominational temple belonging to Sivakasi Hindu Nadar and no member of public is allowed to worship. The right to appoint trustees of the temple exclusively belongs to the Grocery Merchants belonging to Sivakasi Hindu Nadars. The H.R. and C.E. Department have been approving and recognising the appointments made by the Grocery Merchants. In support of the above pleadings, the 1st plaintiff was examined as P.W. I and the 6th plaintiff was examined as P.W.2. As stated above, they also filed Ex.A.1 to A.46. The said documents filed on the plaintiffs' side start from 1928 and end with 1980. 11. The main contention of the defendants' department is that the suit temple was never founded and constructed by the plaintiffs' community. The suit temple is an ancient public temple and it is easily accessible for member of all communities residing at Sivakasi. In other words, according to the defendants, the suit temple is a public temple and plaintiff are not entitled to protection under Article 26 of the Constitution of India read with Section 107 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The Assistant Commissioner by virtue of the powers vested in him under Article 24 appointed the Executive Officer of Arulmigu Viswanathaswamy Temple at Sivakasi as a fit person and the lst plaintiff fully handover the charge on 9-6-1976 to the fit person. Inasmuch as the plaintiffs committed many irregularities in order to escape from the penal action to be initiated, they approached the Civil Court for the said relief. Even though the defendants have pleaded many things and marked Ex. B. 1 to B. 14 in support of their stand, they did not examine any one on their side. 12. The learned trial Judge even though discussed some of the documents produced by the plaintiffs, finally observed that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the suit temple was founded by Hindu Nadars only. The trial Court after holding that there is no record in support of the plaintiffs' case with regard to denominational nature and in the light of Ex.B. 2 to B.4 non-suited the plaintiffs. 13. The lower appellate Court after determining necessary points reappraised the while evidence. The trial Court after holding that there is no record in support of the plaintiffs' case with regard to denominational nature and in the light of Ex.B. 2 to B.4 non-suited the plaintiffs. 13. The lower appellate Court after determining necessary points reappraised the while evidence. Even though there is no direct evidence with regard to the foundation of the suit temple by the Nadar Community of Sivakasi, after analysing the other circumstantial evidence viz; Ancient text books and other various things coupled with the oral evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and in the light of the non rebuttal evidence on the side of the defendants, accepted the case of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit. 14. In the light of the arguments advanced by both sides, more particularly, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/ plaintiffs, I shall consider whether the appellants have made out a case for interference. 15. There is no dispute that Sri Sivasubramania Swamy Temple at Sivakasi is very ancient temple. According to the plaintiffs, the suit temple is an ancient temple belonging to Sivakasi Hindu Nadars and no outsider of the community can claim the worship as a matter of right in the suit temple. No doubt, there is no direct document to prove the year of construction of the temple or the year of the origin of the temple and how it was constructed. However, the plaintiffs very much relied upon by Ex.A.11 which is a sale deed dated 11-7-1928. It is a sale deed executed by one Palaniappa Nadar for himself and on behalf of the his minor son, one Subbiah Nadar younger brother of Palaniappa Nadar and Periyaswami Nadar, younger brother of Subbaiah Nadar for himself and on behalf of the minor sons in favour of ten Nadars representing the Sivakasi Grocery Merchnnts Common Fund Trust in regard to a terraced house in 8th Street, i.e. Subramaniaswamy Kovil Street in Ward No.4, Sivakasi Town. There is a reference in the said document that the suit property could not be used for individual benefits but should be utilised for Dharma Kariam of Subramaniaswamy Temple in Sivakasi North Car Street. There is no contra evidence to show that the vendees in the said document are the trustees representing the common fund. Even according to the defendants, the suit temple is very ancient and it is over 300 years old. There is no contra evidence to show that the vendees in the said document are the trustees representing the common fund. Even according to the defendants, the suit temple is very ancient and it is over 300 years old. We cannot expect the plaintiffs to speak about the actual construction of the temple. In those circumstances, the plaintiffs are entitled to establish that this temple is a denominational temple by other circumstantial evidence. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that in ancient times over 300 or 200 years ago Hindu Nadars were not allowed to enter into a Hindu Temples constructed or founded by other Hindus and that therefore, the Nadars thought of construction of a temple of their own as also they believe in the Hindu Pantheon. At this stage Mr. T. R. Mani, learned Senior Counsel drew my attention to ancient Nadar Community and ancient times in Castes and Tribes of Southern India by Edgar Thurton and K. Rangachari Volume VI-word "SHANAN" has been discussed and the entire history of Nadar Community is analysed in the said Head. A perusal of the said book from Page 363 ending with 376 clearly show that how they were prevented from entering or worshipping the Hindu Temples Bounded by other Hindus. In other words, it is seen that in those ancient times Nadars were not allowed entrance into the temples established by other Communities established in Ramnad and Madurai District. In order to re-enforce the same position the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents cited 1980 (31) ILR(Mad) 236, Sankaralinga Nadar v. Rajeswara Dorai. The observation found at page 243 is relevant for our case : "A great deal of evidence has been adduced with regard to the right of Shanars to enter Hindu temples, other than the plaint temple, whether in other parts of the Madura District or in other districts of the Presidency. There is some evidence on defendants' side that Nadars have been allowed to enter certain Hindu temples in Tanjore and Coimbatore districts, and in Chidambaram in the South Arcot district and also at Palan in Madura District, but there is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence on the plaintiff's side against the existence of any such right in the temples generally in the Madura district. ...... ...... So far as an inference with regard to the custom in the plaint temple can be drawn from the practice in other Sivite temples of the Madura District, the evidence on this point is strongly in favour of the plaintiff's contention." In the 1ight of the abvove mentioned observation, it is contended that in those days Nadars were not allowed to worship other temples established by other communities. In those circumstances it is rightly contended that when once it is found Nadars were solely in management of the temple from time immemorial, it must be held that the temple is solely established and founded by the Sivakasi Nadars and managed by only Sivakasi Nadars and therefore, it is a denominational temple. If it is accepted, then there is no doubt that the suit temple is a denominational temple. 16. The learned Senior Counsel very much relied on Ex.A.2l, A.22 and A.23 in support of the plaintiff's case that the suit temple is a denominational temple founded by Sivakasi Nadars Ex.A.22 is a printed book called "Sivakasi Anthathi" composed by S. Nammalvar Nadar and published in 1913. In the said book 79th Verse is relied upon to show that Grocery Merchants of Sivakasi were only Nadars and that they established the temple. The following 79th verse is extracted hereunder:- (Vernacular matrer omined.-Ed.) (Emphasis supplied) The first and second lines in the above said verse show that grocery merchants have established the suit temple (Sivasubramania Swamy temple). From this, it is also inferred that the suit temple came into being worshipped on account of the said merchants. 17. The other document on which the learned senior counsel very much emphasized is Ex.A-21, viz., "Sivakasi Thala Puranam". The author of the book is Arunachala Kavirayar, student of Sri-la-sri Namasivaya-desikaswamigal. It is stated that the verses therein were composed at the instance of Shenbagakutti Nadar and with the munificence of Sri Shanmuga Nadar. In the said book at page 37 the verse 142 is relevant and the same is re-produced hereunder:- (Vernacular matter omitted-Ed.) (Emphasis supplied) It is the contention of the learned senior counsel for the respondents that the above verse refers to the suit temple and the same was established only by the grocery merchants. In the said book at page 37 the verse 142 is relevant and the same is re-produced hereunder:- (Vernacular matter omitted-Ed.) (Emphasis supplied) It is the contention of the learned senior counsel for the respondents that the above verse refers to the suit temple and the same was established only by the grocery merchants. The under-lined portions in the last two sentences in the above referred verse clearly show that the suit temple was established by the grocery merchants of Sivakasi. 18. The other important document referred to by the learned senior counsel for the respondents is Ex. A-23. It is an ancient text book by name "The Nadars of Tamil Nadu" by Robert L. Hardgrave, Junior, an American Author. A careful scrutiny of the said book, more particularly at pages 97 and 99 shows that it refers to the collection of "Mahamai" by Sivakasi Nadars. Again at page 104 it is mentioned that "The Sivakasi Uravinmurai was organized on the basis of twenty-four street associations. The head of each family was automatically a member of the street association. The head of these associations served for life and was ex officio member of the Uravinmurai. Of the twenty four members of the Uravinmurai, a committee of four (later increased to six) provided the leadership. "Further at page 105 it is mentioned that" as the wealth of the Nadar Merchant communities grew during the nineteenth century, the common funds of mahimai were used for the welfare of the community as a whole. The poor among the caste were fed and clothed and jobs were secured for those of able body. Business failures were prevented with the considered use of mahimai funds. Wells and public buildings for the community were constructed, and in each of the towns, a Mariamman temple was constructed to the community deity."Again at page 108 it is mentioned that" Vegetarianism came into vogue among some Nadars, and fathers named their children after the Sanskritic gods which had come into favour among the community. They constructed temples to Siva and made rich gifts to established temples, to which they were denied entrance. They met the costs of festival days, paying puja (worship) expenses and feeding Brahmins. Brahmin priests were found who were quite willing to provide their services to the wealthy Nadar temples and to officiate in the ceremonies of the caste. They constructed temples to Siva and made rich gifts to established temples, to which they were denied entrance. They met the costs of festival days, paying puja (worship) expenses and feeding Brahmins. Brahmin priests were found who were quite willing to provide their services to the wealthy Nadar temples and to officiate in the ceremonies of the caste. Perhaps the most important symbol of status adopted by the Nadars was the sacred thread of the "twice-born". As stated earlier, in order to show that originally the Nadars were not allowed entrance into the temples and therefore they constructed their own temple and managed their own temple, learned senior counsel for the respondents referred to some of the passages at pages 113 and 114 in the said book. The said book which contains the entire history of Nadars in the State of Tamilnad from the date of their origin was published by Dpiversity of Kalifornia, Berkejey and Las Angels in the year 1969. 19. The learned senior counsel has also brought to my notice the Tamil Nadu District Gazetteers, Ramnathapuram (1961-68) wherein the entire history of Nadars (Shanars) has been mentioned. A perusal of the said Gazetteers shows that even in the year 1895 the Nadars have petitioned that they should be appointed as Dharmakartha of Sivakasi temple. It is also found the existence of Subramanyaswamy temple, Visnathaswamy temple, Pathrakali Amman Koil as well as Mariamman Koil and Perumal Koil in Sivakasi. 20. In the light of the principles laid down in 1908 (31) ILR(Mad) 236 if we analyse some of the important passages referred to in Exs. A-21, A-22 and A-23, even though there is no direct documentary evidence, it is safe to accept the arguments of the learned senior counsel that the suit temple was founded by grocery merchants of Nadar community, Sivakasi. After careful scrutiny of the above said literatures I am in entire agreement with the conclusion reached by the lower appellate Court as well as the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs. In such circumstances, the faint argument of the learned Government Advocate that in the absence of oral evidence by the respective authors, it is not safe to accept those documents (Exs. A-21 to A-23), cannot be countenanced and the said argument liable to be rejected. 21. As already stated, the evidence of P. W. 1 coupled with Ex. In such circumstances, the faint argument of the learned Government Advocate that in the absence of oral evidence by the respective authors, it is not safe to accept those documents (Exs. A-21 to A-23), cannot be countenanced and the said argument liable to be rejected. 21. As already stated, the evidence of P. W. 1 coupled with Ex. A-1 strengthened the case of the plaintiffs that the suit temple was solely in the management of the Hindu Nadars of Sivakasi. Ex. A-1 is the Register of properties belonging to Sri Siva Subramania Swamy Temple, Sivakasi. Ex. A-1 had been verified, checked by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board. A careful scrutiny of Ex. A-1, more particularly in Column 4, 4B at page 1 in Column 5 at page 2 shows that the temple is controlled by the trustees who will be of Sivakasi Hindu Nadars nominated by Sivakasi Hindu Nadars of grocery merchants, who are being deputed by Sivakasi Hindu Nadars. In the last page of Ex. A-1 there is a certificate by the Inspector of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department that the particulars furnished in the Register of Properties are verified with reference to the facts of the above temple and found to be correct. It is seen that the same has been approved and signed by the Assistant Commissioner as well as Deputy Commissioner on 23-4-75 and 18-5-75 respectively. It is also further seen that the Sivakasi Grocery Merchants Association have purchased and given Uthsava Idols of Nataraja and Sivakami Ammai. Ex. A-24 is the day-book of the suit temple showing the collection of rent from various tenants from 1971 to 1973 and Ex. A-25 is the Hundial account of the suit temple from 3-9-1959 to 24-12-1959. Ex. A-26 is the ledger account of the suit temple of grocery merchants fund. The various account books of the Mahamai fund mentioned above clearly show that the grocery merchants alone were spending for the suit temple. Exs. A-12 to A-17 are affidavits filed in M.P. 44/ 29 on the file of Joint Magistrate, Sivakasi which show that they have given an undertaking before the authorities in order to preserve peace. 22. Ex. A-2 dated 24-5-1975 is the letter of Sivakasi Hindu Nadars grocery merchants' mahamai fund, Sivakasi, to Assistant Commissioner, H.R. and C.E., regarding the appointment of trustees which shows that Messrs. 22. Ex. A-2 dated 24-5-1975 is the letter of Sivakasi Hindu Nadars grocery merchants' mahamai fund, Sivakasi, to Assistant Commissioner, H.R. and C.E., regarding the appointment of trustees which shows that Messrs. P.S.R. Shenbagamoorthi Nadar, K.S.V. Rajamani Nadar and P. K. Palappa Nadar, Sivakasi, were nominated as trustees of Sri Siva Subramaniaswamy temple, Sivakasi. Like-wise Exs. B-2, B-3 and B-4 are the applications of plaintiffs 1, 3 and one Selvarajan. There is also reference in Ex. B-2 that the plaintiffs' (petitioners' in Ex. B-2) fore-fathers are responsible for the buildings of all the temples belonging to Nadars at Sivakasi. Ex. B-5 is the order of the Assistant Commissioner appointing Messrs. P.S.R. Shenbagamurthi Nadar, K.S.V. Rajamani Nadar and K.S.V. Selvarajan as trustees from 4-5-71 to suit temple. Ex. B-6 is the application of Palappa Nadar, the 7th plaintiff for his appointment. On the strengh of the above documents the learned senior counsel submitted that it is only the Nadars who established the suit temple and it is only the Nadars who have been trustees of this temple and maintaining the said temple out of Sivakasi Nadars Grocery Merchants' mahamai fund. At this stage, it is relevant to point out that for the reasons best known to the defendants, they have not chosen to examine any one either from their department officers or from other community people to dispute the version of P.Ws.1 and 2. As rightly observed by the lower appellate Court, not even a single independent witness of another community has been examined by the defendants to dispute the claim of the plaintiff or to say that the Hindus other than Sivakasi Nadars have a right of worship in the suit temple. Like-wise, I am also in entire agreement with the observation of the lower appellate Court, namely, merely because trustees were elected by the Hindu Nadars grocery merchants and the same was approved by the H. R. and C.E., Department, it cannot be held that this temple has lost its denominational character.So also merely because the Endowment had audited and levied audit fees, it would not deprive a denomination temple of its character as denominational temple. At this stage, the learned senior counsel for the respondents referred to T. Vellala Samudayam v. State of Tamil Nadu. (1980) 2 Mad LJ 358 : 1981 AIR(NOC) 60). At this stage, the learned senior counsel for the respondents referred to T. Vellala Samudayam v. State of Tamil Nadu. (1980) 2 Mad LJ 358 : 1981 AIR(NOC) 60). The said decision shows that even in the case of denominational temples the department is entitled only to levy audit fee and contribution. 23. The learned senior counsel has also cited a decision reported in Rajagopalier v. Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. (Division Bench), (1971) 84 Mad L.W 86 wherein it is held" that there was no direct evidence that the temple in question belongs to Sourashtra Hindu community at Madurai and as to when and by whom the temple was constructed and it is also mentioned that none other communities living in Madurai Town at any time has chosen to claim the suit temple as their own. It was also the case that the temple was throughout maintained by the leading member of the Sourashtra community. Under such circumstances, it was held that the suit temple therein must be held to be a denominational temple of Madurai Sourashtra. "In our case also there is no evidence that anybodyelse except the plaintiffs Nadars chosen by the grocery merchants of Sivakasi managed the temple as trustees. It is also not disputed that the suit temple is over two centuries old. In the light of the principles laid down in the above said Division Bench decision and in the light of the circumstantial evidence, it is safe to conclude that the plaintiff Nadars must have established this temple and that the grocery merchants belonging to Nadar community of Sivakasi must have been the trustees its management of the suit temple and must have been financing for its upkeep. That is the reason even in Exs. A-21, A-22 and A-23 there is a reference to grocery merchants, Sivakasi. As already stated, none other community has come forward to make a claim that grocery merchants belonging to other communities have also a hold in the management of the temple or the construction of the same. 24. The learned Government Advocate is unable to show any evidence that the persons other than Sivakasi Nadars who are grocery merchants have been appointed as trustees by the department. 24. The learned Government Advocate is unable to show any evidence that the persons other than Sivakasi Nadars who are grocery merchants have been appointed as trustees by the department. On the other hand, the evidence let in on the side of the plaintiffs clearly shows that the persons nominated by the plaintiffs' community were only Nadar grocery merchants, Sivakasi and the same were approved by the department. In those circumstances, it is presumed that the right to manage the temple as denominational temple has not been ceased at any time by the department. 25. If we accept that suit temple is a denominal temple of the plaintiffs community the H.R. and C.E. department cannot have more right than that are given under the Act. As per Article 26 of the Constitution of India, the plaintiffs have got their fundamental guarantee. I may quote the observation of Swamikkannu, J., in a decision reported id Sri Panduranganathaswami Devasthanam v. Deputy Commisioner, H.R. and C.E., Coimbatore, (1988) 2 Mad LJ 53 : (A1R 1989 Mad 198) which reads as follows (Paras 4 and 5) :- "Article 26 of the Constitution of India guarantees certain rights to every religious denomination, subject to public order, morality and health' and the rights are capable of being enforced by or on behalf of a denomination. 'Religion' in this context, is not confined to religious belief but includes the practices which are regarded by the community as part of its religion and may extend even to matters of food and dress. Each religious denomination or organisation enjoys complete autonomy in the matter of deciding as to what rites and ceremonies are essential according to the tenets of the religion they hold. But the Court has the right to determine whether a particular rite or observance is regarded as essential by virtue of a particular religion." It is also relevant to point out the principle enunciated in China Boyan v. Commissioner for Hindu Religions and Charitable Endowments, Madras, (1975) 2 Mad LJ 294 which reads as follows :- "....A law which takes away the right of administration from the hands of the religious denomination altogether and vests it in any other authority would amount to a violation of the right guaranteed under Article 26 of the Constitution." 26. The lower appellate Court is well within its power in relying upon Exs. The lower appellate Court is well within its power in relying upon Exs. A-21, A-22 and A-23 in view of the decision rendered in V. Balakrishnan v The Assistant Commissioner; H.R. and C.E. (Admn.) Department, Tirunelveli, 1978 TLNJ 359 wherein it is held : "Whether it is a denominational temple or not has to be determined by a reference either to the original deed of endowment or any other evidence bearing on it." In the present case, the said three documents are text books written by scholarly persons and it is safe to rely upon those documents. 27. The word "denomination" has been defined in the constitutional Bench decision of the Apex Court reported in Commissioner, H.R.E. v. L.T. Swamiar, 1954 AIR(SC) 282, 1954 SCJ 335, 1954 (1) SCR 1005, 1954 (1) MLJ 596, 20 CutLT 250, 1957 AIR(AP) 103, 1952 AIR(Mad) 613 which is extracted hereunder:- "The word "denomination" has been defined in the Oxford Dictionary to mean "a collection of individuals classed together under the same name; a religious sect or body having a common faith and organisation and designation by a distinctive name". It is well known that the practice of setting up Maths as centres of theological teaching was started by Shri Sankaracharya and was followed by various teachers since then. After Sankara, came a galaxy of religious teachers and philosophers who founded the different sects and sub-sects of the Hindu religion that we find in India at the present day." " Each one of such sects or sub-sects can certainly be called a religious denomination, as it is designated by a distinctive name, - in many cases it is the name of the founder, - and has a common faith and common spiritual organisation. The followers of Ramanuja, who are known by the name of Shri Vaishnabas, undoubtedly constitute a religious denomination; and so do the followers of Madhwacharya and other religious teachings. It is a fact well established by tradition that the Udipi Maths were founded by Madhwacharya himself and the trustees and the beneficiaries of these Maths profess to be followers of that teacher. The High Court has found that the Math in question is in charge of the Sivalli Brahmins who constitute a section of the followers of Madhavacharya. It is a fact well established by tradition that the Udipi Maths were founded by Madhwacharya himself and the trustees and the beneficiaries of these Maths profess to be followers of that teacher. The High Court has found that the Math in question is in charge of the Sivalli Brahmins who constitute a section of the followers of Madhavacharya. As Article 26 contemplates not merely a religious denomination, but also a section thereof, the Math or the spiritual fraternity represented by it can legitimately come within the purview of this Article." 28. It is also useful to refer another decision of the Supreme Court reported in Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore, 1958 AIR(SC) 255, 1958 SCJ 382, 1958 (1) SCR 895, 1958 (1) MLJ(SC) 109, 1988 (34) ELT 521, 1958 (1) MLJ 109 In analysing various decisions of denominational temple, Their Lordships observed : "When there is a question as to the nature and extent of a dedication of a temple, that has to be determined on the terms of the dead of endowments if that is available, and where it is not, on other materials legally admissible; and proof of long and uninterrupted user would be cogent evidence of the terms thereof. Where, therefore, the original deed of endowment is not available and it is found that all persons are freely worshipping in the temple without let or hindrance, it would be a proper inference to make that they do so as a matter of right, and that the original foundation was for their benefit as well. But where it is proved by production of the deed of the endowment or otherwise that the original dedication was for the benefit of a particular community, the fact that members of other communities were allowed freely to worship cannot lead to the inference that the dedication was for their benefit as well. For, it would not in general be consonant with Hindu sentiments or practice that worshipper should be turned away. For, it would not in general be consonant with Hindu sentiments or practice that worshipper should be turned away. Where the foundation was originally for the benefit of the Gowda Saraswath Brahmin community, the fact that other classes of Hindus were admitted freely into the temple would not have the effect of enlarging the scope of the dedication into one for the public generally." " Held on consideration of evidence that the temple at Moolky Petha in village Mannampady in South Kanara District is a denominational temple founded for the benefit of the Gowda Saraswath Brahmins." 29. Before winding up our discussion it is once again useful to refer a Division Bench decision reported in (1971) 84 Mad LW 86 cited supra. In a similar case, there also the Sourashtra Hindu community of Madurai were unable to place documentary evidence with regard to establishment and construction of the temple. In the said decision also on behalf of Sourashtra community other circumstantial evidence alone were let in. In the light of the said position, the Bench has observed. "Admittedly there is no direct evidence this case that the temple in question belongs to the Sourashtra Hindu Community of Madurai. Indeed, the plaintiff-appellant's case in the trial Court was that an Association of a few Sourashtra families living in Sourashtra Krishnan Koil Street had built the same about 300 years ago and that the temple belongs exclusively to the plaintiff-Sourashtra Sabha and its members. There is no direct evidence as to when and by whom the temple was constructed. We are however; satisfied from the circumstances and probabilities of the case that the temple in question ought to have been built only by the Sourashtra Hindu Community. It appears to be probable that the temple in question had been built by a few leading members of the Sourashtra Hindu Community at Madurai about 300 years ago. There is no basis whatsoever for making any surmise that the temple had been built by the entire public constituting all the communities living in Madurai Town out of public subscription. It is significant that none of the other communities living in Madurai Town had at any time chosen to lay claim to the suit temple as their own and this circumstance strongly probabilises the contention that the suit temple must have been built only by the members of the Sourashtra Hindu Community at Madurai. It is significant that none of the other communities living in Madurai Town had at any time chosen to lay claim to the suit temple as their own and this circumstance strongly probabilises the contention that the suit temple must have been built only by the members of the Sourashtra Hindu Community at Madurai. It is seen from Ex. B-10 a letter written by one C. R. Mahadevan, Honorary Secretary of the plaintiff-Sourashtra Sabha on 29th March, 1954 that he had claimed that the suit temple was founded about 300 years ago and is a community temple belonging to the members of the Sourashtra Commnnity, Madurai alone." 30. In the light of the above mentioned principles the reliance placed on the documentary evidence of Exs. A-1 to A-46 coupled with oral evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 and in the absence of any rebuttal evidence from the side of the defendants, I am of the firm opinion that the conclusion reached by the lower appellate Court that the suit temple is the denominational temple of the plaintiffs' community and they are also entitled consequential injunction by the lower appellate Court is fully justified. For the sake of repetition I am mentioning that it is to be borne In mind that the defendants have not examined any member of the public to substantiate that the suit temple is a public one. On the other hand, more particularly, the other text as seen from Exs. A-2l, A-22 and A-23, various account books of mahamai fund showing that the grocery merchants of Sivakasi were alone pending for the suit temple as borne out by Exs. A-I, A-24 and A-25, there is no difficulty in accepting the case of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, I hold that the suit temple is denominational temple of' the plaintiffs' community and they are entitled injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' community in the administration and management of the temple as the denominational temple of the plaintiffs' community. Hence, I an unable to accept any one of the argument of the learned Government Advocate, consequently, the second appeal fails and the same is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissal.