Judgment : These two appeals have been preferred against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.21 of 1982 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli dated 29. 1985. The second defendant in the suit has preferred A.S.No.455 of 1986 and the first defendant has preferred A.S.No.157 of 1990. .2. Respondents in these two appeals namely Maruda Muthiriar and Kandasami as plaintiffs have filed the suit for setting aside the order passed by the first defendant, the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Madras in A.P.No.114 of 1978 dated 17. 1981 and also for a declaration that the plaintiffs are the hereditary trustees of Arulmigu Elliamman and Pidari Amman temples situated in Arivayur village in Trichy Taluk in Trichy District, The temples Elliamman and Pidariamman were established even about 200 years prior to the suit. The administration of the said temples have been, from time immemorial, vested with the predecessors of the plaintiffs by succession. The administration of the said temples was always in the hands of hereditary trustees, The plaintiffs have produced a genealogy to show that their predecessors have been in management of the temple affairs as hereditary trustees for more than 150 years in the past. The temples themselves were established by the predecessors of the plaintiffs and their predecessors have been in management of the affairs of the temples as hereditary trustees. One Periyanna Muthiriyar and Kasturi Naik, who were the predecessors of the plaintiffs were previously trustees of the said temples, Periyanna Muthiriyar died in 1930 leaving his two sons viz., Annavi Muthiriyar and Parimalam Muthiriyar. Annavi Muthiriyar died in 1937 leaving his four sons, while Parimalam Muthiriyar died in the year 1935 leaving his only son. The first plaintiff is the eldest son of Annavi Muthiriyar and he was in management of the affairs of the temple as hereditary trustee. Other brothers have consented to his acting as trustee. These was also no objection for Pichaikkuppudiayar son of Kasturi Naik acting as hereditary trustee. The other brother also was in joint management of the temple as hereditary trustee. One Pitchaikuppudiayar was acting as trustee along with the first plaintiffs father Annavi Muthiriyar, Pitchikuppudiyar, Athanna Udayar, Manikara Udyar and Thiruvenkadam were all hereditary trustees who died leaving being their legal heirs. Athanappa Udayar married three wives and Kandasamy, the second plaintiff is the son born to the third wife. The first two wives have no issues. One Pitchaikuppudiayar was acting as trustee along with the first plaintiffs father Annavi Muthiriyar, Pitchikuppudiyar, Athanna Udayar, Manikara Udyar and Thiruvenkadam were all hereditary trustees who died leaving being their legal heirs. Athanappa Udayar married three wives and Kandasamy, the second plaintiff is the son born to the third wife. The first two wives have no issues. Manikara Udayar died in 1964 and he was only in management of the temple for some time. He had two wives and Pitchai Udayar and Kannusamy are his legal heirs. They have also not claimed any rights to be in management of the suit temples. The suit temples are owning lands to the extent of 19.20 acres which include nanja and punja lands. The annual income of suit temples are owning lands to the extent of 19.20 acres which include nanja and punja lands. The annual income of suit temples was Rs.2,000. Most of the lands are dry lands with no source of irrigation. Temples are situated in poromboke land. The income from the property is not sufficient to maintain the temples. Hereditary trustees used to appoint “poojari” to perform poojas in the temples. Apart from the plaintiffs, no other persons were in possession or in management of the temple for the post 150 years. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration that the plaintiffs are the hereditary trustees entitled to be in management of the suit temples. The Joint Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Trichy has not so for appointed any persons as trustees for the two temples. While so, the second defendant tried to interfere with the management, of the temples which made the plaintiffs to file a petition before the Deputy Commissioner in O.A.No.107 of 1975 for declaration that the plaintiffs are the hereditary trustees for the suit temples. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the said petition by the order dated 29. 1977. Thereafter, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal in O.A.No.114 of 1978 before the first respondent, the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Madras who has also dismissed the appeal without considering the merits of the plaintiffs case. The order is not valid and is liable to be set aside. Hence the suit. .3. 1977. Thereafter, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal in O.A.No.114 of 1978 before the first respondent, the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Madras who has also dismissed the appeal without considering the merits of the plaintiffs case. The order is not valid and is liable to be set aside. Hence the suit. .3. The first defendant, the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Madras, contrasted the suit by filing a written statement contending that the suit is barred by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act 22 of 1959, that this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit, that the suit temples were not established by the predecessors of the plaintiffs, that there is no evidence for such a proposition, that it is not true to say the plaintiffs have been in the exclusive management of the temples as hereditary trustees, that it is true that the temples have been in management of hereditary trustees, that the plaintiffs have failed to prove themselves and their predecessors have been holding the office of the hereditary trustees of the suit temples, that the plaintiffs failed to produce any records or accounts to show that themselves and their predecessors have been exclusively management the suit temples. that the annual income from the lands of suit temples have been falsely stated as Rs.200 that there are extensive lands of about 20 acres which are nanja lands standing in the name of the temples, that the lands should be yielding income more than what is admitted in the plaint, that the income of the temples is more than sufficient to maintain the temples, that the plaintiffs have been misappropriating the income of the temples lands, that the suit has been filed by the plaintiffs to perpetuation their possession of the temple land and the order of the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Madras, are valid and passed after considering the evidence had it is not liable to be set aside, and that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the suit temples were being administrated by the hereditary trustees and that therefore the suit may be dismissed. 4. 4. The second defendant Karuppa Odayar has filed a written statement contending that the suit temples are being administered by hereditary trustees, that this defendant is also a hereditary trustees, that he himself and his predecessors have been in joint management of the temples as hereditary trustees along with others, that the annual income from the suit property would be more than Rs.3,000 that public are also taking part in the administration of temples, that this defendants right to hold the office as hereditary trustee has been upheld by the decision in O.S.No.476 of 1966 on the file of the District Munsif, Trichy, that the same finding has been upheld in A.S.No.672 of 1969 on the file of Sub Court, Trichy that therefore the plaintiffs again cannot contend that they are the exclusive hereditary trustees of the suit temples and that the suit may be dismissed. 5. On the above pleadings, the learned Subordinate Judge has framed issues as to whether the plaintiffs or their predecessors have been managing the affairs of the temples as hereditary trustees for more than 150 years, whether the plaintiffs are the hereditary trustee whether the defendants are entitled to interfere with the affairs of the temples, whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and with regard to the issues regarding relief. 6. On behalf of the plaintiff, the second plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and he has filed Exs.A-1 to A-22 documents. The defendants did not examine any witness on their side and the second defendant has filed Exs.B-1 to B-5 documents. On consideration of the evidence, oral and documentary, the learned Subordinate Judge gave finding to the effect that the plaintiffs are hereditary trustees, that the order of the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. passed in the proceedings to the effect that the plaintiffs alone are not the hereditary trustees, is liable to be set aside and therefore decreed the suit granting declaration as prayed for with costs against the defendants. 7. Aggrieved at the said finding given by the learned Subordinate Judge, both the defendants have preferred appeals as stated above. 8. 7. Aggrieved at the said finding given by the learned Subordinate Judge, both the defendants have preferred appeals as stated above. 8. The point for consideration is whether the suit temples are managed and administrated by hereditary trustees, whether the plaintiffs alone are hereditary trustees entitled to be in exclusive management of the suit temples and whether the second defendant also is entitled to be in joint management with the plaintiffs as hereditary trustees. 9. The points: The suit has been filed as against the order passed by the first defendant, the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Madras, in the appeal preferred against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Trichy. The application was filed by the plaintiffs under Sec.63(b) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959 for declaration the plaintiffs 1 and 2 alone are entitled to act exclusively as hereditary trustees in respect of the management of the suit temples Pidariamman and Elliamman temples situated in a village in Trichy District. The suit is filed against the orders of the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. under Sec.63(b) of the Act. Sec.63 of the Act reads as follows: “Deputy Commissioner to decide certain disputes and matters: Subject to the rights of the suit or appeal hereinafter provided, the Deputy Commissioner shall have power to inquire into and decide the following disputes and matters. .(a) Whether an institution is a religious institution: .(b) Whether a trustees holds or held office as a hereditary trustee; .(c) ….. .(d) ….. .(e) ….. .(f) ….. .(g) ….. So the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. has only jurisdiction to decide the question as to whether trustees hold or held office as hereditary trustees the section does not confer power on the Deputy Commissioner to decide the question as to who among the rival claimants are entitled to hold office as hereditary trustee. In view of the limited scope provided under Sec.63(b) of the Act, naturally, the Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to decide with regard to the inter se dispute, among rival claimants for holding the office of the hereditary trustee of the temples. No doubt, the limited question as to whether the temples are administrated by hereditary trustee or not, can be decided by the Commissioner. No doubt, the limited question as to whether the temples are administrated by hereditary trustee or not, can be decided by the Commissioner. This question has also been considered by this Court in Ariyur Narasimhan Temple v. Sundaramoorthy Pillai Ariyur Narasimhan Temple v. Sundaramoorthy Pillai Ariyur Narasimhan Temple v. Sundaramoorthy Pillai , (1981)1 MLJ. (S.N.) 9 wherein it has been held as follows: ”Sec.63 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, enables a Deputy Commissioner to enquire into and decide as to “whether a trustee holds or held office as a hereditary trustee”. It is by now well-settled that the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner under Sec.57(b) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act of 1951 Corresponding to Sec.63(c) of Tamil Nadu Act XXII of 1959, is confined to a decision whether a trustee holds or hold office as a hereditary trustee, i.e., that decision should be in relation to the status of the office of the trusteeship, namely whether it is hereditary or not and that it is not competent for the Deputy Commissioner to go into the further question as to who among the competing claimants is a hereditary trustee as the matter is not covered by the above provision, This is clear from the decision Krishnaswamy Raja v. Krishna Raja , (1968)1 MLJ. 149 and Rengayya Gounder In view of the above decisions, the question as to who as between the rival claimants is the hereditary trustee cannot be decided by the Deputy Commissioner under Sec.63(b) of Tamil Nadu Act XXII of 1959, as, if such a decision is rendered by him the same cannot bind the civil court which has to decide independently on the evidence adduced by the parties.“ 10. So neither the Deputy Commissioner nor the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. has got power or jurisdiction to decide the rival claims among the persons competing for the office of the hereditary trustee. Therefore, when the H.R. & C.E. authorities have proceeded to adjudicate upon the rival claims made by the plaintiffs and the defendants to the office of the hereditary trusteeship, they have definitely exceeded their jurisdiction. 11. Therefore, when the H.R. & C.E. authorities have proceeded to adjudicate upon the rival claims made by the plaintiffs and the defendants to the office of the hereditary trusteeship, they have definitely exceeded their jurisdiction. 11. Moreover the learned counsel for the petitioner would point out correctly that the rival claims of the plaintiffs and the defendants with regard to the claims claims of holding the hereditary trusteeship of the said temples have been already decided by the competent civil court. In fact, the plaintiffs themselves have filed O.S.No.476 of 1966 on the file of the District Munsif, Trichy and Ex.B-1 is the certified copy of the judgment and decree made in the said suit. The suit has been filed by the present plaintiffs along with four others as against the present second defendant and another Karuppa Odayar. The plaintiffs have prayed for declaration that they alone are the hereditary trustees entitled to exclusion management of the said temples and the defendants have no right to interfere with the administration of the temples by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs 1 and 4 in that suit are the present plaintiffs 1 and 2. Issue Nos.1 and 4 in the said suit are in respect of the plaintiffs exclusive claim for management of the suit temples and for conduct of festivals and issue No.4 relates to the first defendants claim to join with the plaintiffs in management of the temple and in the conduct of the celebration of the festival. The parties have joined in issues and adduced evidence. Learned District Munsif by his judgment dated 22. 1969 after dealing with the evidence both oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that the defendants are also hereditary trustees who are entitled to be in joint management of the suit temples. 12. Aggrieved at the decision rendered by the learned Subordinate Judge, present plaintiffs along with others took the matter in appeal and Ex.B-2 is the copy of the judgment made in A.S.No.673 of 1969 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Trichy. A reading of the said judgment also would show that it was held on careful consideration of the evidence available that the first defendants is also hereditary trustee entitle to be in first management of the suit temples. A reading of the said judgment also would show that it was held on careful consideration of the evidence available that the first defendants is also hereditary trustee entitle to be in first management of the suit temples. Therefore dismissing the claim of the plaintiffs for exclusive possession and management of the suit temples as hereditary trustee both the courts have held that the first defendant also is entitled to be in joint management of the suit temples. 13. Elaborate evidence is adduced in the said suit as against which the appellant namely, the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. has not let in any evidence in the present suit to contend that the suit temples are not administrated by the hereditary trustee. It has been established in the previous suit and also in the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner that at least for the past three generations the temples have been managed by the hereditary trustees. Therefore, the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. cannot now turn round and say that the plaintiffs have not even proved that the suit temples are to be managed by hereditary trustees. Both the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner on consideration of the evidence placed before the court has correctly held that the temples have been managed for the past three generations by hereditary trustees, whose successors are the plaintiffs and the second defendant. Therefore, now it cannot be contended that the suit temples are not being managed by hereditary trustees. But evidence under Ex.B-1 proceedings would show that for more than three generations, the suit temples are being managed only by hereditary trustees. 14. With regard to the rival claims between the plaintiff and the second defendant, the orders passed by the H.R. & C.E. and the Deputy Commissioner are not valid because they lack in jurisdiction to decide the rival claims. Moreover, rival claims have been agitated in a properly constituted prior suit namely Ex.B-1 suit wherein it has been conclusively held that both the plaintiffs and the second defendant are entitled to be in joint management of the suit temples as hereditary trustees. This finding has been confirmed under Ex.B-1 appeal, as against which there is no second appeal, So the findings made under Ex.B-2 have become final. This finding has been confirmed under Ex.B-1 appeal, as against which there is no second appeal, So the findings made under Ex.B-2 have become final. Moreover, the parties are the same, issues involved are also the same and therefore the plaintiffs cannot now contend contra to the findings under Ex.B- 2. Therefore it is correctly contended on behalf of the second defendant that the present suit is barred by res judicata also. First of all, the commissioner has no power to decide the rival claims to the office of the hereditary trustees among the plaintiffs and the second defendant. Therefore, the orders are liable to be set aside and even apart from that, between the rival claim, there is already an adjudication under Ex.B-2 appeal which has become final and the plaintiffs cannot now contend against the decision made in the previous suit. So on any view of the matter, the appeal has to be allowed and the orders are to be set aside and the plaintiffs cannot seek declaration that they are the exclusive hereditary trustees of the suit temples. Suit temples are being administrated by hereditary trustees for the more than three generations and the plaintiffs are entitled to act as hereditary trustees only jointly with the second defendant. 15. Therefore, the appeals are allowed and the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge are set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiffs has to be dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.