Judgment : Heard all the parties. 2. The above appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22. 1985 made in O.S.No.88 of 1983 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Vridhachalam. 3. For the purpose of convenience, parties are described as per their rank in the suit. 4. The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant in the above appeal who had filed the suit O.S.No.88 of 1983 to set aside the order dated 9. 1983 made in A.P.No.132 of 1982 on the file of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (hereinafter referred to as H.R. & C.E.) Department, by exercising his power under Sec.69(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 and for consequential declaration to declare that the plaintiff-appellant herein as a hereditary trustee. 5. The above suit namely, O.S.No.88 of 1983 was filed by the plaintiff-appellant herein under the following facts and circumstances of the case. According to the plaintiff-appellant herein, his, grand-father, Narayan Pillai and his father, Kirshnam Pillai of Eraiyur Village were hereditary Dharmakarthas of Arulmigu Azhagiya Manavala Perumal Temple, Eraiyur Village, Thittakudi Taluk, South Arcot District, within the meaning of Sec.6(11) of the H.R. & C.E. Act. The said temple was established a century ago. Plaintiff-appellant is a hereditary trustee of the said temple by succession from his grandfather, father and now he is continuing as a hereditary trustee since 1968. The plaintiff-appellant filed an application bearing O.A.No.124 of 1976 before the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. under Sec.63(b) of the H.R. & C.E. Act, to declare him as a hereditary trustee which was allowed by an order dated 5. 1977 against which the defendants respondents 2 and 3 herein preferred an appeal before the Commissioner bearing A.P.No.144 of 1977 which was allowed by an order dated 6. 1979, marked as Ex.A-1, and the matter was remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner and the same was renumbered as O.A.No.15 of 1980. The Deputy Commissioner, by his order dated 25. 1982, marked as Ex.A-2, allowed O.A.No.15 of 1980. Aggrieved by the said order, respondents 2 and 3 again preferred an appeal before the Commissioner in A.P.No. 132 of 1982 which was allowed by an order dated 9. 1983, marked as Ex.A-4. setting aside the judgment and decree dated 25. The Deputy Commissioner, by his order dated 25. 1982, marked as Ex.A-2, allowed O.A.No.15 of 1980. Aggrieved by the said order, respondents 2 and 3 again preferred an appeal before the Commissioner in A.P.No. 132 of 1982 which was allowed by an order dated 9. 1983, marked as Ex.A-4. setting aside the judgment and decree dated 25. 1982, in O.A.No.15 of 1980 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Hence, the appellant-plaintiff filed the O.S.No.88 of 1983 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Vridhachalam, to set aside the order dated 9. 1983 and for consequential declaration to declare that the plaintiff-appellant herein as a hereditary trustee. 6. The learned Subordinate Judge, Vridhachalam, in O.S.No.88 of 1983, framed three issues, namely: .(i) Whether the plaintiff-appellant and his predecessors are hereditary Dharmakarthas? .(ii) Whether the proceedings of the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. dated 9. 1983 is allowed in law? and (iii) To what relief the plaintiff-appellant is entitled? 7. The plaintiff-appellant examined three witnesses namely P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked 159 documents as Exs.A-1 to A-159, on his behalf and the defendants-respondents examined two witnesses namely D.Ws.1 and 2 and marked 13 documents as Exs.D-1 to D-13, in their defence. It is suffice to mention that the plaintiff-appellant here in examined himself as P.W.1 while the second defendant-respondent examined himself as D.W.1. 8. In appreciation of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and Exs.A-1 to A-159 as well as D.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.D-1 to D-13, the learned Subordinate Judge, Vridhachalam, by his order dated 22. 1985 dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff-appellant herein and is predecessor are not hereditary trustees and therefore the proceedings in A.P.No.132 of 1983 dated 9. 1983 is upheld. 9. The reasons that weighed with the learned Subordinate Judge, Vridhachalam are: .(i) As per Exs.A-23, A-27, A-28, A-30, A-32, A-33, A-34, A-43, A-47, A-50, A-57, A-61, A-63, A-65, A-66, A-68 to A-77, A-79 to A-119, A-121 to A-147, the plaintiff-appellant was described as Manager; .(ii) As per Ex.A-148, the plaintiff appellant was described as Managing Trustee; (iii) As per Ex.A-149, the plaintiff appellant was described as temporary trustee and (iv) As per Exs.A-9, A-21, A-31, A-35, A-37 to A-42, A-44, A-46, A-48, A-49, A-51 to A56, A-58 to A-60, A-62, A-64, A-67, A-78, A-150, the plaintiff-appellant was described as Dharmakarthas. Since in all these documents produced by the plaintiff-appellant, the plaintiff-appellant and his predecessors are described either as Manager or Managing Trustee, or Temporary Trustee or Dharmakarthas, but not as hereditary trustee, the learned Subordinate Judge, Vridhachalam, rejected the claim of the plaintiff-appellant. 10. That apart, learned Subordinate Judge, Vridhachalam also found that in the Ex.A-154, Krishnan Pillai, father of the plaintiff-appellant herein, was described as Secretary and in Ex.A-153, Krishnan Pillai, father of the plaintiff-appellant herein was described as Dharmakartha, along with one Mr.Panjanatham Pillai and Mr. Pazhamalai Pillai and then along with one Mr. Arumugam Pillai as trustees. Therefore, the learned Subordinate Judge, Vridhachalam has held that since the plaintiff appellant and his predecessors has acknowledged the position either as temporary Manager, or as Managing Trustee or as temporary Trustee or as Dharmakartha but not as hereditary trustees, they are not entitled to claim as hereditary, within the meaning of Sec.6(11) of the H.R. & C.E. Act and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 9. 1983 made in A.P.No.132 of 1982 on the file of the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., the unsuccessful plaintiff-appellant has preferred the above appeal. 11. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant contends that the judgment and decree of the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. dated 9. 1983 made in A.P.No. 132 of 1982 reversing the finding of the Deputy Commissioner in O.A.No.15 of 1980 dated 25. 1982 is erroneous and illegal; the Commissioner H.R. & C.E. erred in law in rejecting the claim of the plaintiff-appellant to declare him as a hereditary trustee within the meaning of Sec.6(11) of the H.R. & C.E. Act, merely on the ground that in the documents filed by the plaintiff-appellant, the plaintiff appellant and his predecessors are described either as Manager, or as Managing Trustee or as temporary Trustee or as Dharmakartha, but not as hereditary trustee because they cannot be described as hereditary trustee unless and until they are declared as hereditary trustee under Sec.63 (b), for which the plaintiff-appellant has made an application namely O.A.No.124 of 1976 against which the above appeal has arisen. Only if the Deputy Commissioner decides the matter by exercising power under Sec.63(b), ofcourse, subject to the order of the Commissioner under Sec.69(1) of the civil court under Sec.71, the plaintiff-appellant and his predecessor could be described as hereditary trustee. Only if the Deputy Commissioner decides the matter by exercising power under Sec.63(b), ofcourse, subject to the order of the Commissioner under Sec.69(1) of the civil court under Sec.71, the plaintiff-appellant and his predecessor could be described as hereditary trustee. Therefore, rejecting the claim of the plaintiff-appellant as hereditary trustee merely on the ground that the forefathers of the plaintiff-appellant were described as Manager or Managing Trustee or temporary trustee or Dharmakartha, is erroneous and nothing but a non-application of mind. 12. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant invited my attention to the fact that the plaintiff-appellant and his predecessors were continuously entrusted with the trusteeship of the temple in question, either independently or along with other trustees by itself is sufficient to justify the claim as hereditary trustee. He further contends that the mere fact the plaintiff-appellant and his predecessors were functioning and discharging their obligations as trustees along with some other third parties as trustees, cannot amount to renunciation of their right as hereditary trustee. 13. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant, in support of his contentions, relied on the decision of this Court in Chettimai C. Nanjappa Chettiar v. S.N. Kuppuswami Chettiar, 99 L.W. 675. 14.Per contra, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the H.R. & C.E. Department as well as the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 have reiterated the reasons and findings of the learned Subordinate Judge, Vridhachalam mentioned in the order dated 22. 1985 in O.S.No.88 of 1983. 15. I have given careful consideration to the submissions of both sides. .16. Sec.6(11) of H.R. & C.E. Act, defines the hereditary trustees as follows: .“hereditary trustee” means the trustee of a religious institution, the succession to whose office devolves by hereditary right or is regulated by usage or is specifically provided for by the founder, so long as such scheme of succession is in force.” .17. As and when any dispute arises in the hereditary trustee, Sec.63 of H.R. & C.E. Act, enables the Deputy Commissioner to decide whether the trustee holds or held office as a hereditary trustee. Admittedly, it is under such controversy, O.A.No. 124 of 1976 was originally initiated by the plaintiff-appellant herein, which ultimately had culminated in the proceedings dated 9. As and when any dispute arises in the hereditary trustee, Sec.63 of H.R. & C.E. Act, enables the Deputy Commissioner to decide whether the trustee holds or held office as a hereditary trustee. Admittedly, it is under such controversy, O.A.No. 124 of 1976 was originally initiated by the plaintiff-appellant herein, which ultimately had culminated in the proceedings dated 9. 1983 made in A.P.No. 132 of 1982 on the file of the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., that was sought to be set aside by the plaintiff-appellant herein in the above suit with consequential declaration as mentioned above. 18. In my opinion, there is no necessity to search whether the plaintiff-appellant and his predecessors were described as hereditary trustees in the exhibits produced by them. Unless and until they were declared as hereditary trustee, as per the definition of Sec.6 (11) of H.R. & C.E. Act, by a competent authority, namely the Deputy Commissioner or Commissioner, of course subject to the orders of the Commissioner or the civil court, in the manner known to law. 19. A perusal of the above documents clearly shows that the plaintiff-appellant and his predecessors were identified themselves with the trusteeship of Arulmigu Azhagiya Manavala Perumal Temple, Eraiyur Village, Thittakudi Taluk, South Arcot District either as Manager or as Managing Trustee or as Temporary Trustee or as Dharmakartha or as secretary etc. independently or along with some other trustees. The said documents were properly weighed by the Deputy Commissioner and the plaintiff-appellant was declared as hereditary trustee by order dated 25. 1982 in O.A.No.15 of 1980. Inspite of good and sufficient reasons that weighed the Deputy Commissioner in his order dated 25. 1982, the Commissioner dismissed the claim of the petitioner and the same was confirmed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Vridhachalam in O.S.No.88 of 1983 dated 27.2,1985 merely on the ground that the plaintiff-appellant and his predecessors were not described as hereditary trustee, in the documents produced by them. 20. As already pointed out, the plaintiff-appellant and his predecessors are entitled to be described or mentioned as hereditary trustees only after duly declared by the H.R. & C.E. Department, after the final decision in the proceedings initiated before the Deputy Commissioner. 20. As already pointed out, the plaintiff-appellant and his predecessors are entitled to be described or mentioned as hereditary trustees only after duly declared by the H.R. & C.E. Department, after the final decision in the proceedings initiated before the Deputy Commissioner. To declare them as hereditary trustees, what is required under Sec.6 .(11) are: .(i) The succession to the office of a trustee devolves by hereditary right, or .(ii) The succession to the office of the trustee is regulated by usage; or (iii) The succession to the office of the trustee is specifically provided for by the founder. 21. In the instant case, the documents filed by the plaintiff-appellant satisfied the first condition namely the succession to the office of the trustee devolves by hereditary right. That part, in Chettimai C. Nanjappa Chettiar v. S.N. Kuppuswami Chettiar, 99 L.W. 675 following a Supreme Court decision in Kakinada Annadana Samajam v. Commissioner of H.R. and C.E., (1972)1 M.L.J. 5 (S.C.), this Court has held as follows: “It cannot be stated that either the father of the plaintiff or the plaintiff stood dissociated from the trusteeship and management and on the other hand, they continued to be very much in the picture. From the features disclosed, it is not possible to strictly spell out relinquishment or renunciation of the office of the hereditary trustee. Even otherwise, relinquishment or renunciation of the hereditary trusteeship for no value, as per discussion supra, cannot be countenanced, so as to deprive a person entitled to succeed-in the present case, the plaintiff-of his right to do so. On facts, it has come out that the plaintiff in his right as a successor has come into the office of hereditary trustee.” Therefore, I am obliged to hold that merely because the plaintiff-appellant and his predecessors were functioning as trustees or Dharmakarthas along with some other parties, namely, Panjanatham Pillai, Pazhamalai Pillai, Arumuga Pillai, as the case may be, that itself cannot disown or disentitle the right of the plaintiff-appellant to claim the hereditary trusteeship. 22. For the reasons mentioned above, I set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Vridhachalam in O.S.No.88 of 1983 dated 22. 1985 and consequently the order of the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., dated 9. 1983 in A.P.No.132 of 1982 is also set aside. The order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 25. 22. For the reasons mentioned above, I set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Vridhachalam in O.S.No.88 of 1983 dated 22. 1985 and consequently the order of the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., dated 9. 1983 in A.P.No.132 of 1982 is also set aside. The order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 25. 1982 made in O.A.No.15 of 1980 is, therefore, confirmed. 23. In the result, appeal is allowed. However, there is no order as to costs.