Judgment : Plaintiff is the appellant. .2. The case of the plaintiff briefly is as follows: Sri Subramaniaswamy temple in the village of Vadugakkudi in Thiruvaiyar Taluk is very ancient and its origin is lost in antiquity. But the temple had been managed hereditarily by the plaintiff and his ancestors as Sthanikams which term is generally used to describe a person who is acting in the duel role of trustee-cum-poojari. One Ayya Gurukkal was managing the affairs of the temple and he was the Sthanikam’ of the temple in the year 1862 when the inam in favour of the temple was confirmed by the Commissioner under T.D.No.610 on 211. 1862. The said Ayya Gurukkal was managing the affairs of the temple and after his demise, the office of the trustee-cum-gurukkal devolved on his only son Venku Gurukkal, who was managing the affairs of the temple. Venku Gurukkal had only one daughter Subbulakshmi Ammal as his only heir and she also predeceased her father Venku Gurukkal. After the death of Venku Gurukkal the plaintiff as the only son of Subbulakshmi Ammal, succeeded to the office of trustee-cum-gurukkal of the suit temple and he has been acting as such eversince. The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department has been attempting to appoint some non-hereditary trustees to this temple. The plaintiff being the hereditary ‘Sthanikam’ (trustee-cum-archaka) was ignorant of his legal rights under the Act. So he did not protest to such illegal appointments. During emergency in 1976, purporting, to act under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1976, the temples management was usurped from the plaintiff by the executive officer of the Kandiyur Brahma Sira Kandeeswarar Temple. The plaintiff filed an application before the second defendant for declaration of his rights under Sec.63(b) of the H.R. & C.E. Act, 1959. The second defendant dismissed the petition. But the plaintiff preferred an appeal to the first defendant. The first defendant also had dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that he is the hereditary trustee-cum-archaka of the suit temple. Even today, the plaintiff continues to be the archaka of this temple and he is running the entire administration of the temple, even though there is a fit person. The first defendant also had dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that he is the hereditary trustee-cum-archaka of the suit temple. Even today, the plaintiff continues to be the archaka of this temple and he is running the entire administration of the temple, even though there is a fit person. The plaintiff has lent a sum of Rs.2,100 to the temple for the purpose of doing Samabandhi Bojanam’, since the temple had no funds of its own to do the same. The suit is filed for declaration that the plaintiff is holding the office as the hereditary trustee-cum-archaka of the suit temple by setting aside the orders of the defendants. 3. Defendants filed written statement contending that the suit temple is an ancient one. Either the plaintiff or any one of his ancestors ever managed the temple as trustees. H.R. & C.E. Department has appointed non-hereditary trustees from the year 1951 and they are managing the temple. The claim of the plaintiff is imaginary. The appointed trustees were in effective and open management of the temple. The plaintiff was serving only as Archaka of the temple without any murmur. The then trustees also handed over the charge to the fit person. Both the defendants have passed considered orders in accordance with law and on proper appreciation of evidence on record and probabilities of the case. The temple is only under the control of the H.R. & C.E. Department from the year 1951. The suit is bad non-joinder of necessary parties and is liable to be dismissed. 4. Thesuit was tried by the Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur and he dismissed the suit. As against that judgment and decree, the present appeal has been directed by the plaintiff/appellant. 5. In the appeal, the appellant contends that only plaintiff and their ancestors have been managing the temple as Trustee-cum-Archaka for this temple and this appellant has been performing pooja services in the temple continuously without any break even after 1951. The appointment of nonhereditary trustee in the temple would not take away the right of the plaintiff as hereditary trustee. So the suit has to be decreed. 6. The point for consideration is as to whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed fore 7. The plaintiff alleges that the suit temple an ancient temple and his fore-fathers were functioning trustees and they were managing the temple. So the suit has to be decreed. 6. The point for consideration is as to whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed fore 7. The plaintiff alleges that the suit temple an ancient temple and his fore-fathers were functioning trustees and they were managing the temple. Of course, the suit temple is an ancient temple but there are no documents to prove that who is the founder of that temple. The plaintiff further alleges that one Ayya Gurukkal was ‘Sthanikam; for this temple and as per the Inam title deed Ex.A-2. the said Ayya Gurukkal was managing the temple and he got the property under Ex.A-2 as ‘Sthanikam; of the temple. In Ex.A-2 it is stated as ‘Devadayam for Pagoda of Subramaniya Swami. ‘P.W.1s evidence as that the said Ayya Gurukkal got the property in the capacity as ‘Sthanikam; and he was also a Archakar for the temple. .8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff claims his right in the capacity as ‘Sthanikam’ and ‘Sthanikam’ means ownership and as the ‘Sthanikam’ the plaintiffs ancestors were managing the temple and afterwards it devolved on the decedents and now the plaintiff is the ‘Sthanikam’ for the temple and is entitled to manage the temple. 9. Learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the plaintiff is not the ‘Sthanikam’ and he is only ‘Sthanikar that means he is the Archakar or the person looking after the temple affairs and he cannot claim the right of ‘Sthanikam’ for the suit temple. The dictionary meaning of the word ‘Sthanikam’ is the hereditary ownership of a temple and the ‘Sthanikar’ is person who supervises the temple affairs. Ex.A-3 is the letter written by Devasthanam Inspector to Venku Gurukkal, the ancestor of the plaintiff. In Ex.A-3 that Venku Gurukkal was described as ‘Sthanikar’ and not as ‘Sthanikan. The plaintiff claims that his right of ‘Sthanikan, which nowhere finds place in the document. Ex.A-3 reveals, that the plaintiff ancestor Venku Gurukkal was the ‘Sthanikar’, one who supervises the temple or the Archakar. In Ex.A-3 it is recited that Venku Gurukkal was the poojari, Sthanikar’ of Sri Subramaniaswamy Koil at Vaduvakudi. Ex.A-3 is of the year see Rules 1935. Perhaps that the plaintiffs ancestor Venku Gurukkal was Stahnkiar/Archakar in the year 1935. His ancestor Ayya Gurukkal was also ‘Sthanikar’ as evidenced by the title deed Ex.A-2. In Ex.A-3 it is recited that Venku Gurukkal was the poojari, Sthanikar’ of Sri Subramaniaswamy Koil at Vaduvakudi. Ex.A-3 is of the year see Rules 1935. Perhaps that the plaintiffs ancestor Venku Gurukkal was Stahnkiar/Archakar in the year 1935. His ancestor Ayya Gurukkal was also ‘Sthanikar’ as evidenced by the title deed Ex.A-2. Ex.A-2, the title deed was executed in the year 1862. Ayya Gurukkal is described as Subbaramanya Swami Temple ‘Sthanikar’ in the year 1862 under Ex.A-2. Ex.A-2 reveals that the original ancestor Ayya Gurukkal was only ‘Sthanikar. He was doing all the poojas in the temple. So even prior to Ex.A-3 the plaintiffs ancestor Ayya Gurukkal was not ‘Stahnkam’ as contended by the plaintiff and he was only ‘Stahnkiar’ doing poojas, since he was ‘Sthanikar’ doing poojas work in the temple. This find place in Ex.A-3 as ‘Stanikar’ and Ex.A-2 will not confer any title on the plaintiffs ancestors as ‘Sthanikam’ - conferring ownership. The land, has been entered in the register in the name of Subramaniya Swami Gurukkal. In the title deed Ayya Gurukkal Subramaniya Swami Gurukkal in the title deed Ayya Gurukkal was described only as ‘Sthanikar’. In Ex.A-3 also Venku Gurukkal was described as ‘Sthanikar’. These documents prove that Ayya Gurukkal and Venku Gurukkal were only ‘Sthanikar’ (i.e.) Poojari in the temple. The trial court has found that Ex.A-4 proves that Venku Gurukkal was the son of Ayya Gurukkal because the father name of Venku Gurukkal is mentioned as Ayya Gurukkal in Ex.A-4. Ex.A-7, the othi deed also proves that Venku Gurukkal is the son of Ayya Gurukkal, The plaintiff has filed Ex.A-10 to prove that he is the legal heir of Venku Gurukkal being his grandson through his daughter Subbulakshmi Ammal. But there are no documents to prove that Ayya Gurukkal and Venku Gurukkal were managing the affairs of the temple and also doing poojas and they were the trustees-cum-Archakar for that temple. Exs.A-2 and A-3 proves that Ayya Gurukkal and Venku Gurukkal were ‘Sthanikar’ and they were doing poojas in the temple. .10. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that in the villages, in the small temples, the trustees are performing all poojas and they are archakars and they are otherwise called as trustees-cum-archakar and likewise, the plaintiffs ancestors were the trustee-cum-archakar for the temple. .10. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that in the villages, in the small temples, the trustees are performing all poojas and they are archakars and they are otherwise called as trustees-cum-archakar and likewise, the plaintiffs ancestors were the trustee-cum-archakar for the temple. The suit temple is getting an annual income of more than Rs.10,000 as evidenced by the order of the Commissioner Ex.A-1. The Commissioner has found in Ex.A-1 that the temple is assessed on annual income of over Rs.10,000 and assessed for fasli 1387 on income of Rs.10,162. So the temple cannot be called as a small one in which Archakar or Poojari will be called himself, as trustees. Since the temple is assessed on an annual income of over Rs.10,000 the temple is not a small temple so as to claim trustee-cum-poojariship in that temple. So the plaintiffs claim in this respect is also not sustainable. 11. The documentary evidence of Exs.A-2 and A-3 prove that Ayya Gurukkal was referred as ‘Sthanikar’, which means Archakar and Poojari and that does not denote as manager or trustee and Ayya Gurukkal could not be the manager or trustee of the temple in the light of the description in the title deed Ex.A-2. Ex.A-2 proves that Ayya ‘Gurukkal was only doing the work of poojas. In Ex.A-3 also it is recited that Venku Gurukkal was doing pooja work and therefore, there is unassailable documentary evidence on the side of the plaintiff to prove that the plaintiffs ancestors Ayya Gurukkal and Venku Gurukkal were Archakar or poojari for the temple and they were not the trustees for the temple. So, it is not proved that the trusteeship was hereditary and the plaintiffs ancestors were trustees and after them, the plaintiff is the trustee for the temple. The documents filed on the side of the defendants prove that from the year 1951, the temple is managed by the trustees appointed by H.R. & C.E. Department. 12. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that during 1977, under emergency, the fit person was appointed and that is not proper and the plaintiff was given right to hold the office as hereditary trustee-cum-archaka for the suit temple. As I have already stated absolutely there is no proof that the plaintiffs ancestors were hereditary trustee-cum-archaka. 12. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that during 1977, under emergency, the fit person was appointed and that is not proper and the plaintiff was given right to hold the office as hereditary trustee-cum-archaka for the suit temple. As I have already stated absolutely there is no proof that the plaintiffs ancestors were hereditary trustee-cum-archaka. P.W.2 has also spoken to the fact that Ayya Gurukkal and Venku Gurukkal were only doing poojas in the temple. No accounts were maintained by the said Ayya Gurukkal and Venku Gurukkal to show that they were managing the properties of the temple. The documents filed by the defendants, Exs.B-1 to B-4 prove that the plaintiff is only Archakar for the temple and he is receiving salary every month for doing Poojas in the temple. P.W.1 has also admitted in his evidence that he is doing Poojas and he is receiving his salary for doing archaka work in the temple. He further admits that when any special poojas were doing in the temple, he was given paddy. The plaintiff has signed in Ex.B-4 for the receipt of paddy. Exs.B-1 to B-4 prove that the plaintiff was receiving salary for his archakar work and he has also signed for receiving paddy. So it is well evident that the plaintiff is only doing pooja work in the temple for which he has been receiving salary from the temple and he has signed in the registers in Exs.B-1 to B-4 in token of receipt of the salary. He also admits in his evidence from the year 1951, the trustees are appointed for the suit temple and they are managing the temple and he is the archakar for the temple for 42 years, He further admits, that only the trustees leased out the temple properties. The evidence of P.W.1 and the documents prove that the plaintiff is doing only poojas in the temple and for that Pooja work (i.e.) Archakar, he is receiving the salary from the temple. there are no documents to show that the plaintiffs ancestors were trustees-cum-poojaris for the temple and they were managing the temple. So, absolutely there is no evidence for the claim made by the plaintiff. The plaintiffs claim is not at all sustainable and the suit is liable to be dismissed. The trial court after careful analysis of the entire evidence and documents dismissed the suit. So, absolutely there is no evidence for the claim made by the plaintiff. The plaintiffs claim is not at all sustainable and the suit is liable to be dismissed. The trial court after careful analysis of the entire evidence and documents dismissed the suit. There is no infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. 13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. No costs.