Judgment :- 1. The first defendant who has lost in both the courts below has filed this Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiffs, the respondents 1 to 11 herein, filed the suit for declaration that the suit temple is a denominational temple belonging to Parakkai Athithavarman Perumtheru Keezhatheru, Mutharamman Temple of Parakkai Village with the consequential relief of injunction. The appellant Assistant Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department contested the suit inter alia contending that the suit temple is a public temple, that the H.R. and C.E. Department has already appointed the trustees of the temple after making due publication in the village and that therefore, the plaintiffs cannot claim the relief of the said declaration. 3. After trial, the lower Court decreed the suit. Against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendants preferred an appeal before the lower Appellate Court, which in turn, remanded the suit to the trial Court in order to give an opportunity to the plaintiffs who claim exclusive right over the temple to establish the special practices followed by them in the matter of worship in the temple. Accordingly, the plaintiffs were allowed to amend the plaint, additional issue was raised and the evidence was let in. On consideration of the above evidence, the trial Court again decreed the suit. The aggrieved defendants filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the lower Appellate Court by confirming the judgment and decree of the lower Court. Hence, the second appeal is by the H.R. and C.E. Department before this Court. 4. Mr. Ilango, the Government Advocate appearing for the appellant, would contend that the plaintiffs cannot contend that the suit temple is a denominational temple, in view of the submission of the plaintiffs to the administration of the H.R. and C.E. Board which is evident from Exs. B1 to B7, that both the Courts below have not considered Exs. B18 to B21 and that already trustees had been appointed in the year 1967 for five years and some persons were again appointed as trustees in 1972 after the expiry of the said five years. 5. It is further contended that there is no material produced by the plaintiffs to hold that it is a religious denomination so as to attract the protection under Art. 26 of the Constitution of India. 6. Per contra, Mr. 5. It is further contended that there is no material produced by the plaintiffs to hold that it is a religious denomination so as to attract the protection under Art. 26 of the Constitution of India. 6. Per contra, Mr. Subramanian, the counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 11 the plaintiffs, pointed out various portions of the judgments of the Courts below and contended that the requirements to satisfy the denominational temple have been fully complied with in this case, as disclosed from the evidence of the witnesses and the documents produced on behalf of the plaintiffs. 7. In support of the submissions made by both the counsel, various decisions have been cited, which we shall see later. 8. On the side of the plaintiffs P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A22 were marked. On the defendants side D.W.1, Inspector of H.R. and C.E. Department, Nagercoil, was examined and Exs.B1 to B21 were marked. 9. According to the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs that the suit temple was founded by the fore-fathers of Chetty Community of Parakkai Athithavarman Perumtheru Keezhatheru, that the suit temple was managed by the trustees elected by the said Community people and that at no point of time, the temple was managed by any other Hindus other than Chetty Community people. 10. From Exs.A1 to A5 it is seen that from 1925 the elected trustees from Chetty Community have been dealing with the properties of the temple and managing the affairs of the said temple. The other documents also produced by the plaintiffs would make it clear that various festivals were being conducted in the temple only by the said Community. 11. P.Ws. 1 to 3 speak about the ceremonies that are being conducted by the trustees in the temple periodically. They have further stated that no Hundi or Undiyal is provided in the temple and that the people belonging to other community are not paying any contributions for the maintenance of the temple. P.W.4 would speak about the special practices followed by them in the matter of worship in the temple. 12. On the side of the defendants, D.W.1, Inspector of H.R. and C.E. Board alone was examined. His deposition was mainly on the basis of the report submitted by him. P.W.4 would speak about the special practices followed by them in the matter of worship in the temple. 12. On the side of the defendants, D.W.1, Inspector of H.R. and C.E. Board alone was examined. His deposition was mainly on the basis of the report submitted by him. He would also speak to the effect that H.R. and C.E. Board appointed some persons belonging to Parakkai Athithavarman Perumtheru Keezhatheru as trustees in 1967 and they were again reappointed in the year 1972. However, it cannot be contended that those persons are the representatives of the Chetty Community. But, the question is whether the suit temple managed by the trustees of Parakkai Athithavarman Perumtheru Keezhatheru Chetty Community forms religious denomination within the meaning of Art. 26 of the Constitution. 13. It is settled law that a temple would become a denominational temple only if it is established and maintained by a religious denomination or any section thereof. If the members of a religious denomination claim that the religious institution in question has been established and maintained by them, their rights are governed by Art. 26 of the Constitution and the same are left untouched by the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act on account of Section 107 thereof. 14. Before answering the above question, in the light of the evidence adduced before the lower Court, let us first consider the authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court as well as this Court relating to the above question. 15. In K.V. Vaidyanatha Sastrigal v. K.S. Ramaswani Iyer (1972 T.L.N.J. 404), Honourable Justice Sadasivam observed as follows: — “When the question arises as to whether or not a temple has been dedicated to a particular sect, the performance of the worhsip of the idol in accordance with the rites of the sect for whose benefit it was held might be treated as evidence of dedication.” 16. In Kuppuswami Chetty v. Commissioner of H.R. & C.E. (1972 T.L.N.J. 443), Honourable Justice Ramaprasada Rao (as he then was) held that the sect called the Beri Chetty Community was a religious denomination in as much as the members of the community were followers of Sri Abhinava Dharma Sivacharya Math which had peculiar concepts in the matter of religion. 17. In Kuppuswami Chetty v. Commissioner of H.R. & C.E. (1972 T.L.N.J. 443), Honourable Justice Ramaprasada Rao (as he then was) held that the sect called the Beri Chetty Community was a religious denomination in as much as the members of the community were followers of Sri Abhinava Dharma Sivacharya Math which had peculiar concepts in the matter of religion. 17. In the majority judgment in S.P. Mittal v. Union of India (A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 1), it has been stated as follows: — “The words ‘religious denomination’ in Art. 26 of the Constitution must take their colour from the word ‘religion’ and if this be so, the expression ‘Religious denomination’ must also satisfy three conditions” 1. It must be a collection of individuals who have a system of beliefs or doctrines which they regard as conducive to their spiritual well-being, that is, a common faith; 2. Common organisation; and 3. Designation by a distinctive name.” This is reiterated in Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta (A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 51). 18. In Assistant Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Salem v. N.K.S.E. Mudaliar (A.I.R. 1987 Madras 187), Honourable Justice Srinivasan (as he then was) would observe as follows: — “As seen from the decision of the Supreme Court, the words ‘religious denomination’ must take their colour from the word ‘Religion.’ It is, therefore, clear that the common faith of the community should be based on religion. It is essential that they should have common religious tenets. The basic cord which connects them should be religion and not anything else.” 19. In The Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras v. Shri Lakshmindra Theertha Swaniyar of Shri Shirur (A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 282 - 67 L.W. 1220), it is observed as follows: — “As regards Art. 26, the first question is, what is the precise meaning or connotation of the expression “religious denomination” and whether a Math could come within this expression. 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 designated by a distinctive name ”. 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 designated by a distinctive name ”. 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.”’ 20. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Vilampatti Nadar and others ( 1991 (1) L.W. 382 ), Honourable Justice Somasundaram (as he then was) would observe as foliows: — “In order to hold that the particular community constitutes a religious denomination within the meaning of Art. 26 of the Constitution, it must be proved that the said community has a system of beliefs or doctrines which the members of the community regard as conducive to their spiritual well-being. It is essential that the members of that community must have common religious tenets peculiar to themselves other than those which are common to the entire Hindu Community.” 21. Let us now consider the question, in the light of the above decisions, whether the suit temple is a denominational temple within the meaning of Art. 26 of the Constitution. 22. According to the pleading by the plaintiffs, the Chetty Community residing in Parakkai Athithavaraman Perumtheru Keezhatheru has special practices, beliefs and observances in the matter of worship and conduct of ceremonies in their temple as constituting integral part of the religion. 23. To substantiate the above plea, P.W.4 was examined and Exs. All to A22 were marked. The idols in the suit temple are made up of clay. If the idols were demaged, it could be set right by the sculptor by name Sudalaiyandi. At that time there was a special worship for two times daily in the morning and in the evening the festivals would be conducted once in three years. The members of the Chetty community residing in the street will be contributing money to meet out the expenses of Kodai Festival. During the festival, one Kumarathazhi will dance. He will bath with hot turmeric water and distribute ‘prasathams’ to members of Samudayam. In the month of Karthikai every day, there is a special pooja. The members of the Chetty Community form a group. During the festival, one Kumarathazhi will dance. He will bath with hot turmeric water and distribute ‘prasathams’ to members of Samudayam. In the month of Karthikai every day, there is a special pooja. The members of the Chetty Community form a group. Each group will meet the expenses of Karthikai Chirappu in each of the 30 days. If there is a marriage in the house of members of the Samudayam, the trustees of the temple used to plant the ‘kal’ for the marriage. The trustees will be invited by both bride and b ridegroom parties. If any member of the Samudayam died, the doors of the temple will be closed. The trustees will conduct all the ceremonies in connection with the death of the member of the Samudayam. 24. So, the oral evidence of P.W.4, which is supported by the documentary evidence Exs.A11 to A22, would show that the Chetty Community people have special practices, beliefs and observances in the matter of worship and conduct of ceremonies in their temple as constituting integral part of the religion. 25. According to P.Ws.1 to P.W.3, the suit temple was founded by the fore-fathers of the Chetty Community of Parakkai Athithavarman Perumtheru Keezhtheru and the said temple was managed by the trustees elected by the above said community people. To establish that this temple was managed by the trustees elected by the Chetty community people, Exs. A1 to A10 were marked. So, these materials would prove that the suit temple was founded and is managed by the collection of individuals who has a common faith for the spiritual well being by forming into a common organisation and this is also designated by distinctive name Parakkai Athithavarman Perumtheru Keezhathru. Therefore, three conditions as stipulated by the Apex Court in Mittals case (supra) have been, in my view, satisfied. 25-A. But, on the side of the defendants, nothing has been placed before the lower Court to show that the suit temple would not come under the denominational temple. On behalf of the defendants, the Inspector, H.R. and C.E. Board, merely on the strength of the appointment orders of the trustees in the years 1967 and 1972, would stated that it is under the control of H.R. and C.E. Board. Except this statement of D.W.1, no other witness has been examined to show that the suit temple was not managed by common organisation with common faith. Except this statement of D.W.1, no other witness has been examined to show that the suit temple was not managed by common organisation with common faith. 26. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am unable to persuade myself to agree with the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the appellant. 27. In the result, the second appeal, which has no merit and is liable to be dismissed, is dismissed.