JUDGMENT: Defendant is the appellant. 2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows: There is a temple dedicated to Lakshminarayanaperumal in Thirukandalam village, Chingleput District. The temple was founded by the forefathers of the plaintiff and that temple is situated in the personal dwelling house of the plaintiff. In short, the temple has been treated by the plaintiff and his ancestors as their place of worship. The ancestors of the plaintiff allowed the public to have general worship in the institution but, the management of the institution had always been in the family of the plaintiff eversince its inception. The institution also possessed of properties endowed by the ancestors of the plaintiff. The income derived from the land was not sufficient for the institution. The plaintiff is spending out of his own funds. One Krishnamachari was managing the affairs of the institution as hereditary trustee. After his death, his first son Ananthachari succeeded to the office of hereditary trustee in the suit temple and the said Ananthachari was succeeded by his only son T.K.Krishnamachari and was the hereditary trustee till his death in 1960. The plaintiff was adopted by him in the year 1959 and after the death of T.K.Krishnamachari, the plaintiff succeeded to the office of the hereditary trustee and is functioning there. Thus, the trusteeship had always been in the family of the plaintiff and his ancestors. The plaintiff and his ancestors were appointing the archakas of the temple all these years. The order passed by the Commissioner is not proper. Hence, the suit is filed to set aside the order passed by the Commissioner and declaring that the plaintiff is the hereditary trustee of the suit temple. 3. The defendant filed written statement contending as follows:The plaintiff has not produced any documentary evidence to show that he succeeded T.K.Krishnamachari as his adopted son. The plaintiff also did not prove that himself and his ancestors have managed the temple in an unbroken line of succession. The temple is open to public worship and the public is worshiping in the temple as a matter of right. This defendant was right in dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiff in A.P.No.133 of 1978. The plaintiff also did not produce any record for the transfer of patta in respect of private properties of T.K.Krishnamachari in his favour. The temple is open to public worship and the public is worshiping in the temple as a matter of right. This defendant was right in dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiff in A.P.No.133 of 1978. The plaintiff also did not produce any record for the transfer of patta in respect of private properties of T.K.Krishnamachari in his favour. The plaintiff has also not filed any document to show that he is the adopted son of T.K.Krishnamachari and as such he has no right to file this suit. 4. The suit was tried by the Sub Judge, Thiruvallur and it was decreed as prayed for. 5. As against that judgment and decree, the present appeal is filed by the defendant. 6. Point for consideration is whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree asked for. 7. According to the plaintiff, the suit temple was founded by the forefathers of the plaintiff and the plaintiff was adopted in the year 1959 and after the death of the last successor T.K.Krishnamachari, the plaintiff succeeded to the office of the hereditary trustee and so, he is the hereditary trustee and the order passed by the Commissioner has to be aside. The defendant contends that the plaintiff is not the hereditary trustee. 8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the last successor and hereditary trustee was T.K.Krishnhamachari and he was managing the affairs of the temple as the hereditary trustee and he adopted the plaintiff and after his death, his adopted son the plaintiff is the hereditary trustee and he succeeded to the office of the hereditary trustee in that temple and functioning as such till this date and as the trusteeship had always been in the family of the plaintiff and his ancestors in an unbroken line of succession and none outside the family of the plaintiff ever functioned as the trustee in that temple and as the archakas are also appointed by the plaintiff and his ancestors, the decree passed by the trial court is perfectly justified and it does not warrant any interference. 9. 9. On the other hand, counsel for the appellant submitted that the plaintiff has not established that he is the adopted son and there is also no proof with regard to the succession by hereditary trustees and the temple is open to public worshiping and the public is worshiping in the temple and the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief asked for. 10. The plaintiff as P.W.1 speaks in his evidence that this temple was constructed 200 years ago and his forefathers constructed that temple and only their family people constructed that temple and now, the village people are worshiping in the temple, but, he alone is managing the affairs of the temple. The plaintiff filed documents Exs.A-1 to A-4 and kist receipts Exs.A-5 to A-16 to show that the lands belonging to the suit temple were purchased by the plaintiff’s forefathers and kist was being paid by them. P.W.1 also states that some of the pattas stand in their name and some pattas stand in the name of the temple and even archakas are appointed by him and he is paying salary to the archakas. So, the evidence of P.W.1 is that only his forefathers founded the temple and they were the hereditary trustees. The plaintiff claims to be the adopted son of T.K.Krishnamachari and he claims the hereditary trusteeship. 11. The plaintiff has filed the documents to prove that his forefathers were dealing with the temple and he in the capacity as the adopted son of T.K.Krishnamachari, is the hereditary trustee in the suit temple. The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. passed order holding that the plaintiff is not the hereditary trustee of the suit temple. The plaintiff claims this order to be set aside and a declaration declaring him to be the hereditary trustee. So, it has to be seen whether the plaintiff comes in the hereditary line of succession to succeed to the hereditary trusteeship of the suit temple. 12. The plaintiff relies upon the Will Ex.A-17 and contends that he is the adopted son of T.K.Krishnamachari and comes in the hereditary line of succession. Ex.A-17 Will is executed by T.K.Krishnamachari. In Ex.A-17, the plaintiff is described as ‘Abhimanaputhiran’ of T.K.Krishnamachari. The plaintiff is not described as the adopted son. 13. Learned advocate appearing for the Government drew my attention to the dictionary meaning of the word ‘Abhimanaputhiran’. Ex.A-17 Will is executed by T.K.Krishnamachari. In Ex.A-17, the plaintiff is described as ‘Abhimanaputhiran’ of T.K.Krishnamachari. The plaintiff is not described as the adopted son. 13. Learned advocate appearing for the Government drew my attention to the dictionary meaning of the word ‘Abhimanaputhiran’. In the dictionary, the term ‘Abhimanaputhiran’ is described as foster son, son of affection not recognised by law. He also drew my attention to the dictionary meaning of the word ‘Sweekaraputhiran’. It means the adopted son and ‘Sweekaram’ means take or accept as once own. He distinguished the dictionary meanings of the words ‘Abhimanaputhiran’ and ‘Sweekaraputhiran’ and pointed out that only if the plaintiff is described as ‘Sweekaraputhiran’ he will be treated as adopted son and the testator under Ex.A-17 had not accept him as his own and ‘Abhimanaputhiran’ means only foster son not recognised by law and the clear description of the plaintiff as ‘Abhimanaputhiran’ in the Will Ex.A-17 will not confer any right on the plaintiff to claim the hereditary trusteeship for the suit temple. Except the Will Ex.A-17, no other document is filed by the plaintiff to prove that he is the adopted son of T.K.Krishnamachari. The alleged adoption of the plaintiff by T.K.Krishnamachari is not proved in this case. Reliance is placed upon the wording in Ex.A-17 as ‘Abhimanaputhiran’ by the plaintiff to claim the right of adopted son. 14. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the Will is valid and any recital in the document holds good and the testator T.K.Krishnamachari accepted the plaintiff as adopted son and basing upon the Will Ex.A-17, the plaintiff can be declared as the hereditary trustee. 15. The plaintiff is described in Ex.A-17 Will as ‘Abhimanaputhiran’. If really the plaintiff was adopted, and was inducted in that family, it would not have been mentioned as ‘Abhimanaputhiran’ and the word ‘Abhimanaputhiran’ denotes only foster son and basing upon Ex.A-17 alone, the plaintiff cannot claim to be the adopted son and claim the hereditary trusteeship. The plaintiff also relies upon the certificate given by the Tahsildar under Ex.A-20 stating that the plaintiff is the adopted son of T.K.Krishnamachari. The plaintiff has not filed any documents to prove the adoption. In the absence of any proof for adoption, merely relying upon the word in Ex.A-17 as ‘Abhimanaputhiran’ the plaintiff cannot claim the hereditary trusteeship. The plaintiff also relies upon the certificate given by the Tahsildar under Ex.A-20 stating that the plaintiff is the adopted son of T.K.Krishnamachari. The plaintiff has not filed any documents to prove the adoption. In the absence of any proof for adoption, merely relying upon the word in Ex.A-17 as ‘Abhimanaputhiran’ the plaintiff cannot claim the hereditary trusteeship. In order to claim the hereditary trusteeship, the plaintiff must establish that he comes in the line of succession. 16. The plaintiff is described as the trustee in Exs.B-1 to B-3 adangal extracts. Even in those documents, the plaintiff is described as the trustee and not the hereditary trustee. The adoption of the plaintiff has not been established in this case. The trial court found that D.W.1 admitted in his cross examination that the plaintiff is the present trustee of the suit temple and the plaintiff has been the trustee from the date of death of his adoptive father T.K.Krishanmachary and the plaintiff is paying kist for the suit temple lands and he had also admitted that prior to his father, one Ananthachari was managing the affairs of the suit temple. Of course the evidence on the side of the defendant proves that the plaintiff and his forefathers alone were the trustees for the suit temple. But, the plaintiff has not established his claim for the hereditary trusteeship. The plaintiff does not come in the line of succession. He claims the hereditary trusteeship only as the adopted son of T.K.Krishnamachary. To prove such adoption, there is no proof. 17. This Court has held in Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. v. Maligai and Shop Varthagar Sangam, (1976)1 M.L.J. 17 , that, “The definition of the term” hereditary trustee “ contained in Sec.6(11) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 contemplates three possibilities; The first, is, the succession to the office of the trusteeship must devolve by hereditary right; the second is, the succession to the office of trusteeship must be regulated by usage; and third is, the succession to the office of trusteeship must be specifically provided for by the founder. The common feature to all these three situations is that there is a succession to the office of trusteeship.” Usage “ can have relevancy, meaning and significance only if a particular method of succession has been proved to be in existence over a long period during which more than one succession had taken place.” A Division Bench of this Court has considered in Natarajan v. The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., (1988)1 M.L.J. 105, with regard to the hereditary trustee and succession to the office of the trustee and held that it has to be provided for by the founder. This court has observed in the above decision that: “The founder of the temple ‘V’ executed a Will in and by which his brother-in-law ‘VR’ has been nominated as manager of the temple. Beyond this, the founder has not made any mention about succession to the office of manager or trustee. Only ‘VR’ the Manager has in his will purported to vest the administration of the temple in the committee of five trustees and he has also provided for succession to the offices of trustees. It is clear, therefore, that the founder of the temple has not provided for succession to the office of trustee. Therefore the plaintiffs who claim as hereditary trustees under the will executed by ‘VR’ and not the founder of the temple, do not come within the meaning of the definition under Sec.6(11) of the Act.” From the above decision, it is evident that the founder of the temple has to provide for succession to the office of the trustee. In State of Madras v. Krishnaswami, (1964)2 M.L.J. 369 , this Court has held that: “From the mere fact of trusteeship of a temple being held by a family hereditarily for three or four generations, an inference that the trusteeship was hereditary in character cannot be drawn as an invariable conclusion. Where in the case of a temple the management is found to have passed from the poojari to another for a long time and subsequently a well-wisher of the temple (Abhimani) acquired the temple lands by purchase from the poojari along with the poojarship, and the purchaser and his successors take over the trusteeship, that would not establish the ingredients of a hereditary right to the trusteeship.” 18. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff contended that in a suit for declaration of adoption, the plaintiff can use statements in a Will that the beneficiary in the Will is the adopted son of the testator. He relies upon the decision in Chandreshwar v. Bisheswar, A.I.R. 1927 Pat. 61, wherein it has been held that: “In a suit for declaration of adoption, the plaintiff can use statements in a Will that the beneficiary, the plaintiff is the adopted son of the testator provided the statements were not made in the interest of the testator and in view of a litigation.” 19. But, in the case on hand, even in the Will, the plaintiff is not described as the adopted son. He is described only as ‘Abhimanaputhiran’. So, the recital in the Will Ex.A-17 does not confer any right on the plaintiff as the adopted son. So, the plaintiff cannot be said to have come in the line of succession of the hereditary trusteeship. Further, it is recited in Ex.A-17 that after his lifetime, his properties have to be protected and hence, he has executed the Will in favour of his ‘Abhimanaputhiran’ the plaintiff and he has also given right of trusteeship in the suit temple to the plaintiff. It is borne out by the pleadings and the evidence of P.W.1 that T.K.Krishnamachari and his forefathers were the trustees for the suit temple. The plaintiff is not the adopted son of T.K.Krishnamachary to claim the hereditary trusteeship. 20. Except the wording in the Will Ex.A-17 describing the plaintiff as ‘Abhimanaputhiran’ of T.K.Krishnamachary, there is no proof that the plaintiff was inducted in that family as adopted son. The word ‘Abhimanaputhiran’ does not mean the adopted son. So, basing on Ex.A-17, the plaintiff cannot claim the hereditary trusteeship as he is not adopted son of T.K.Krishnamachary. So, I find that the plaintiff is not entitled to be the hereditary trustee and the order of the Commissioner is not liable to be set aside. Hence, I hold that the judgment and decree passed by the trial court are liable to be set aside. In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. The suit is dismissed. No costs.