Judgment : 1. Defendants are the appellants. 2. The case of the plaintiffs is as follows:- Arulmigu Mariamman Temple situate in Kosavampatti Village, Namakkal Taluk, Salem District was founded by the Kavarai Chettiars of that village. The temple was managed exclusively by them and festivals were also conducted by that community people alone. There are Vinayagar temple, Perumal temple, Madeswaran temple and Navagraham temple. The temple land for the temple was donated by the persons who hail from Kavarai Chettiar community of that village. The land was surrounded by houses. The community people applied for sanction to auction the property and it was auctioned for Rs.17,100 and it is in deposit and the interest is spent for the maintenance of the temple. The Endowment Board also appointed trustee from the said community alone as selected by the said community of the village from 1965 onwards. The Assistant Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Salem appointed trustees from the said community as selected by that community people. So the temple exclusively belongs to and is man aged by the Kavarai Chettiar community. The plaintiffs belong to Kavarai Chettiar community and they are at present the elected trustees of the temple and they are regular’ worshippers of the temple. In the year 1975, the community renovated all the temples and did Kumbabhishekam. The plaintiffs understand that proceedings are being taken for appointing the trustees for all the temples in the District, if any such action is taken, the right of the community will be affected. Hence, they filed petition under Sec.64 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act before the deputy Commissioner for framing a scheme for making appointment of trustees only from the community of Kosavampatti village. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the petition. The plaintiffs preferred appeal before the Commissioner and the Commissioner, without considering the merits of the case dismissed the appeal by an order dated 15.4.83 and that order is erroneous and it is liable to be set aside. The second defendant had appointed the third defendant as the trustee for the temple from the community. Hence, the suit is filed by the plaintiffs to a set aside the order of the first defendant and declare that the suit temple exclusively belongs to and managed by the Kavarai Chettiar community of Kosavampatti village. 3. The second defendant had appointed the third defendant as the trustee for the temple from the community. Hence, the suit is filed by the plaintiffs to a set aside the order of the first defendant and declare that the suit temple exclusively belongs to and managed by the Kavarai Chettiar community of Kosavampatti village. 3. The defendants filed written statement contending as follows:- The suit temple and other temples attached to the suit temple were not exclusively managed by the Kavarai Chettiars of Kosavampatti village. There is no documentary evidence to substantiate the claim of the plaintiffs that the suit temple was founded by the members of the said community for their benefit. The plaintiffs community people alone were not worshipping in the suit temple. The plaintiffs did not prove that the temple was constructed only by Kavarai Chettiar community. The claim of the plaintiffs was correctly dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner which was confirmed by the Commissioner. The order passed by the commissioner is legal and valid and it is not liable to be set aside. The suit temple is a public temple and the department has got every right to exercise its control over the temple. It is a religious institution as defined under the Act and it does not belong to the members of the Kavarai Chettiar community. 4. The suit was tried by the Sub Judge, Namakkal and it was decreed declaring that the suit temple is a denominational temple belonging to Kavarai Chettiar community of Kosavampatti village and the Kavarai Chettiar community people have got exclusive right to manage the affairs of the temple accordingly and thus set aside the order of the first defendant. 5. As against that judgment and decree, the present appeal is filed by the defendants. 6. Point for consideration is whether the suit temple is a temple exclusively belonging to Kavarai Chettiar of Kosavampatti village and whether the order of the first defendant is liable to be set aside. 7. 5. As against that judgment and decree, the present appeal is filed by the defendants. 6. Point for consideration is whether the suit temple is a temple exclusively belonging to Kavarai Chettiar of Kosavampatti village and whether the order of the first defendant is liable to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the suit temple is not a denominational temple belonging to Kavarai Chettiar community of Kosavampatti village and the judgment and decree passed by the trial court are based on surmises and presumptions and they are., arbitrary since there is no evidence to show that the suit temple was founded by the people of Kavarai chettiar community and the suit temple is a public temple and the order of the defendants is not liable to be set aside. 8. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that only Kavarai Chettiars of Kosavampatti village are managing the suit temple and it was founded by the Kavarai Chettiar community people and the suit temple exclusively belongs to the community known as Kavarai Chettiars or Valayakara Chettiars and only that community people have got right to manage the affairs of the temple. 9. The trial court found that the plaintiffs adduced evidence to show that the suit temple situate in Kosavampatti village in Namakkal Taluk in Salem District, which village is predominantly inhabited by the people of Kavarai Chettiars and the temple has all along been maintained by them and the suit temple also includes minor temples like Matheswaran temple, Vinayagar temple, etc. situate in the same village and only a handful of people belonging to other communities reside in that’ village and the evide nce of PWs is to the effect that for the past many years the temple has been exclusively, -managed by the Kavarai Chettiar community people and as such the people belonging to any other community has not at any point of time claimed or performed any act of, management in the suit temple and the suit temple exclusively belongs to Kavarai Chettiar community and accordingly the trial court has given finding that the suit temple is a denominational temple belonging to Kavarai Chettiar community. 10. 10. Learned Advocate appearing for the Government submitted that even in the plaint, there is no pleading that the suit temple is a denominational temple and even in the prayer in the plaint, the declaration with regard to denominational temple has not been sought for, but the suit has been decreed declaring that the suit temple is a denominational temple and so, the decree passed is also not proper and It is not in accordance with the pleading in the plaint. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the plaintiffs claim this temple as one belonging to Kavarai Chettiar community and it is a denominational temple and the nature of the denomination has been proved and the relief given is justified. 12. Before the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. the plaintiffs claimed that the temple was founded by Kavarai Chettiar community and it has been in their exclusive management. The Deputy Commissioner found that the plaintiffs produced some documents before him and the documents contained members belonging to the other communities also and their claim that the temple was constructed by the members of the particular community is not proved by any piece of evidence and there is also no evidence to prove that the community members endowed lands as affirmed in the petition. On appeal before the Commissioner, the Commissioner also found that the plaintiffs have not produced any evidence to show that the temple was constructed by the members of the particular community and the application was filed by the plaintiffs in their individual capacity and not in a representative manner and there is nothing on record to show that the appellants are the representatives of Kavarai Chettiars and accordingly confirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner which orders are challenged in the suit and the relief of setting aside those orders is sought for and the suit was decreed by the trial court thereby setting aside the orders of the defendants. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that there is no evidence that this temple belongs only to Kavarai chettiar community and they alone are managing the temple. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that there is no evidence that this temple belongs only to Kavarai chettiar community and they alone are managing the temple. He further pointed out that the temple itself is situate in a poramboke land and there is also no evidence with regard to the founder of the temple and absolutely there is no proof that only Kavarai Chettiar community people were the original founders and they alone are managing the temple to the exclusion of others. 14. The first plaintiff has been examined as PW1. His evidence is that the temple belongs to their community exclusively and apart from this temple, there is Matheswaran Temple, Vinayagar temple and Navagraham temple and all these temples are managed only by their community people and in that village majority of the people are their community people. He further states that the temple is situate in a maaniyam land and that land was sold and the amount of Rs. 17, 000 was invested in bank and the interest amount is spent for the temple and they are also managing the temple with the donation given by the community people and even the trustees are appointed only from among their community people selected by them. He further states that Kumbabishekam was conducted in that temple in 1975 and only their community people gave donation and they are also engaging poojaris and paying salary. 15. Even though PW1 has spoken in his chief examination that the temple is being managed by their community people, he states that he does not know as to when the temple was constructed and who constructed it. He admits that the temple is situate in a poramboke land and they also sold the land belonging to the temple only after obtaining permission from the H.R. & C.E. Board. He further admits that there is also no record to show that only their community people selected the trustees and other community people also used to worship in that temple and for the festivals also they collect amount from other community people. He further admits that there is also no record to show that only their community people selected the trustees and other community people also used to worship in that temple and for the festivals also they collect amount from other community people. The evidence of PW1 proves that the temple itself is in poramboke land and even the land belonging to the temple was sold only after obtaining permission from the H.R. & C.E. Board and the fact that the temple is situate in a poramboke land goes to establish that it does not belong to any particular community people or it is a private one and the founder of the temple was not a person belonging to the Kavarai Chettiar community. If really the temple was founded by the Kavarai chettiar community people as contended by the plaintiffs, the founder of the temple ought to have given land for the construction of the temple and the temple ought to have been constructed in the land belonging to their community people. The fact that the temple is situate in a poramboke land belies the case of the plaintiffs that the temple exclusively belongs to Kavarai Chettiar community. PW2’s evidence is that only at the time of festivals collections were made from Kavarai Chettiar community people. The evidence of PW2 is contrary to the evidence of PW1. PW2 also does not know as to who constructed the temple. PW3’s evidence is also contrary to the evidence of PW1. PW4 Karnam of that village also states that there is no record pertaining to that temple. 16. The plaintiff relies upon Ex.A7 Kumbabishekam Pathrika and states that only Kavarai Chettiar community of that village performed the Kumbabishekam. But, absolutely there is no proof that the temple was founded by Kavarai Chettiar community people and it is exclusively managed by them. PW1 himself admits that only after obtaining permission from the H.R. & C.E. Board, they sold the land belonging to the temple. Ex.A3 is the letter of the Assistant Commissioner; H.R. & C.E. addressed to the Commissioner wherein he states that the sale proceeds of the land belonging to Mariamman temple has been deposited in bank. The copy of that letter has been sent to the trustee of the temple. Ex.A4 is the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner appointing the trustees for the temple. The copy of that letter has been sent to the trustee of the temple. Ex.A4 is the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner appointing the trustees for the temple. These documents reveal that even in the year 1965, the trustees were appointed by the H.R.&C.E. Department. 17. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submitted that only Kavarai Chettiar community people are residing in that village and they alone are managing the temple and it exclusively belongs to them. He relies upon the decision in A.Palaniandi Pillai v. Commissioner, H.R. and C.E Madras, 93 LW 12 wherein a Division Bench of this Court held has that From the evidence of PW.1 and 2, it is seen that the Melatheru Chetti community in the town of Padmanabhapuram is a separate religious denomination and the community or Samudayam owns the temple absolutely and it is managing the temple by donations from the members of that community. This management dates back to 1913. The documents referred to supra are more than 30 years old which support the case that the temple was in the management of the Samudayam for over 30 years exclusively and there is absolutely no evidence contra to show that any other religious group either contributed or managed the temple. He also relies upon the decision in Rajagopaller v. Commissioner, H.R.&C.E, 84 L.W. 86 wherein it has been held that The Sourashtra Brahmin Community of Madurai, which is admittedly a part of the Hindu Community, is a religious denomination, and the temple of Sri Prasanna Venkateswaraswami situated in Sourashtra Krishnan Koil Street, Madurai Town, is a denominational temple which is governed by Article 26 (a) and (b) of the Constitution of India. The fact that the suit temple may fall within the definition of a temple in S.6, ‘“ .(2) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitabl e Endowments Act of 1959 can make no difference. He also relies upon the decision in T.Vellala Samudayam v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1980 (II) MLJ 358 wherein it has been held that It was clear that the temple concerned had been in the management of the Vellalas of that area. There were two sects of these Vellalas governed by distinct lines of succession, one group following the law of succession by makkavazhi, and other by marumalakkavazhi. There were two sects of these Vellalas governed by distinct lines of succession, one group following the law of succession by makkavazhi, and other by marumalakkavazhi. Except in matters of succession to properties there did not appear to be any distinction between the two sections of the community. Therefore the community would be a sect entitled to maintain the temple as it had been doing so for a long time. The plaintiff would, therefore, be entitled to a declaration that the temple was a denominational temple and for the relief prayed on that basis.” 18. In the decision reported in A.Palaniandi Pillai v. Commissioner, H.R. and C.E Madras, 93 LW 12, it was found that the Melatheru Chetti community is a separate religious denomination and it owns the temple absolutely and the documents filed also are more than 30 years old which support the case that the temple was in management of the Samudayam for 30 years exclusively and absolutely there is no evidence contra to show that any other, religious group either contributed or managed the temple. So, it was found that it is a temple belonging to a religious denomination. In the case on hand, absolutely there is no evidence even with regard to founder of the temple and it is -in exclusively management of the Kavarai Chettiar community people. Absolutely there is no documentary proof. Even the evidence of PWs is not satisfactory to come to the conclusion that the temple belongs to Kavarai Chettiar community people. Even PW1 admitted in his evidence that even from other community people, they were collecting contributions for the festivals and the suit temple is situate in a poramboke land. So, the decisions relied on by the counsel for the plaintiff are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. 19. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants/defendants submitted that to prove that a particular community constitutes religious denomination, it must have a system of beliefs or doctrines. He relies upon the decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. Marimuthu Nadar, 1990 (2) MLJ 395 wherein it has been held that In order to prove that the particular community constitutes a religious denomination within the meaning of Article 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 wellbeing. 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. In the absence of evidence to show that the Hindu Nadar Community of Vilampathi have a common faith that Is to say, a system of beliefs or doctrines or religious tenets peculiar to that community, it is not correct to come to the conclusion that the Hindu Nadars of Vilampathi is a religious denomination. It has to be held that the Hindu Nadar Community of Vilampathi is not a religious denomination in order to get the benefits under Article 26 of the Constitution. He also relies upon the decision in Nallakaruppan v. Commissioner, H.R.&C.E., AIR 1966 Mad. 99 wherein it has been held that “Unlike the temples in Malabar and Kerala, there is a presumption in the case of temples in South India, that they are public and the burden is on the party, who asserts that they are private to prove it.” 20. The plaintiffs who claim that the suit temple exclusively belongs to Kavarai Chettiar community have to establish that it was founded by their community people and it is being managed privately without any contribution from any other people. No document is filed to establish such things. The plaintiffs have miserably failed to establish their case. The documents filed prove that only the H.R.&C.E. Board has been managing the temple by appointing trustees and the suit temple does not exclusively belong to Kavarai Chettiar community. 21. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs argued that merely because the trustees selected by the Kavarai Chettiar community are approved by the H.R. & C.E. Board, it will not establish that the temple lost its denominational character. He relies upon the decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. P.S.R.Senbagamurthy Nadar, AIR 1997 Mad. 96 wherein this court has held that the fact that trustees were elected by Hindu Nadars grocery merchants and approved by Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department and the Endowments has audited and levied audit fees is not sufficient to say that the temple has lost its denominational character. 22. 96 wherein this court has held that the fact that trustees were elected by Hindu Nadars grocery merchants and approved by Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department and the Endowments has audited and levied audit fees is not sufficient to say that the temple has lost its denominational character. 22. In the above decision, the facts are that the temple was originally founded and constructed by Hindu Nadars and grocery merchants belonging to Hindu Nadars and there was’ document to show that the temple is a denominational temple of Hindu Nadars and the finding is that the documentary evidence cannot be rejected and accordingly it was held that the temple has not lost its denominational character merely because the trustees were elected with the approval of the H.R.&C.E. Board. But, the facts in the case on hand is entirely different. There is no document to prove that the suit temple was founded by Kavarai Chettiar community people and the ancestors of that community people alone were managing the suit temple exclusively and it is their private temple. 23. In the absence of any evidence on the side of the plaintiffs that the suit temple exclusively belongs to Kavarai Chettiar community people, it is very difficult to sustain the claim of the plaintiffs. The temple itself being situate in poramboke land and as no acceptable evidence has been let in by the plaintiffs to establish their case, I find that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief asked for. The judgment and decree passed by the trial court are liable to be set aside. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the trial court are set aside. The suit is dismissed. No costs.