Judgment : 1. This appeal suit is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6.11.1987 rendered in O.S.No.98 of 1986 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Villupuram thereby dismissing the suit with costs, which had been filed by the appellants praying to restrain the defendants by way of permanent injunction from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession, administration and enjoyment of Sri Arulmigu Mariamman Temple, V.Marudur, Villupuram and for costs. 2. Totrace the plaint averments, the subject matter is a temple dedicated to Sri Arulmigu Mariamman, V. Marudur, Villupuram, which has been instituted for the benefit of the members belonging to Vanniyar and Yadava Communities: that their ancestors were looking after the affairs and administration of the temple exclusively for over 100 years; that another group namely Naidu group and Vanniyar group headed by one Muthyalu Naidu and Rama Gounder were administering the affairs of the temple as “Nattamai” and nominating certain number of persons, they were looking after the affairs of the said temple without any hindrance from outside or from others: that so far as the second group operating under Muthyalu Naidu is concerned, on his death, his son Kuppusamy took over the “Nattamai” and on his death, the 8th plaintiff herein is looking after the affairs, who is his brothers son and at present the first group is represented by plaintiffs 2 to 5 and the second group by plaintiffs 6 to 8 through the second plaintiff for the 7th plaintiff. 3. The further averments of the plaint are that seeking a settlement of the scheme of administration in order to induct only members belonging to Vanniyar and Yadav communities into the Trust Board for the management of the temple, representation was made under Sec.64(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) before the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Madras in O.A.No.76 of 1978 and the said authority after enquiry dismissed the petition on ground that two denominations, simultaneously, cannot manage the temple: that challenging this order, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal under Sec.69(1) of the Act before the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. and the said authority having entertained the same in A.P.No.18 of 1981, he too dismissed the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs. It is only testifying the validity of these orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., the Statutory suit has been filed by the plaintiffs before the lower Court with prayers extracted supra. 4. In the written statement filed by the defendants 1 and 2, they would allege that it is not correct to say that the temple is for the sole benefit of Vanniyar and Yadava communities, when all community people are worshipping the deity; that it is a public temple and not a private one; that it is further false to say that the plaintiffs and their forefathers were in enjoyment of the temple for over 100 years; that there is no evidence in support of their claim; that the Department took the management of the temple in 1975 and appointed, by its order made in R.Dis. 971/75, dated 4.12.1975, five persons viz., (1) Varadarajan, (2) Rajakannu, (3) Perumal, (4) Durairasan and (5) Sundararasan as trustees, out of whom Durairasan was elected Chairman, Board of Trustees on 10.12.1975; that testifying the validity of the appointment of the said Trustees, one Kuppusamy Naidu filed a Revision Petition in R.P.No.288 of 1975 and the same got dismissed in 19.7.1976, which has become final. 5. 5. Theother averments of the written statement are that the said Kuppusamy Naidu and eight others have filed an application under Sec.63(b) of the Act for declaration of the Trusteeship hereditaral in O.A.No.228 of 1976 and the same was dismissed on 16.2.1977 and no appeal was preferred against the same and hence it has become final; that the Department appointed one V. Ramamoorthy, village Munsif as ‘fit person’ as per its proceeding in RC.No.5306/77, dated 11.5.1977; that the said persons filed petition under Sec.64(1) of the Act for framing a scheme, treating the temple as a community temple and the same having come to be dismissed in O.A.No.76 of 1978 by the Deputy Commissioner as on 24.3.1980, they preferred an appeal before the Commissioner under Sec.69(1) of the Act and the said appeal also got dismissed on 12.6.1986; that since the plaintiffs did not prefer any appeal, as against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in O.A.No.225 of 1976, that order has become final; that further in view of the decisions made in O.A.No.76 of 1978 and A.P.No.18 of 1981, they are not entitled to maintain this suit and the very suit, as filed, is not sustainable in law, besides becoming barred by limitation; that the appointment made by the Assistant Commissioner in pursuance of the order dated 16.2.1977 is perfectly failed and enforceable; that the plaintiffs are estopped from questioning the validity of the appointment of the third defendant as the ‘fit person’ to act as the trustee till suitable applications for trusteeship are called for; that considering various aspects, the Department appointed the ‘fit person’ as early as on 16.2.1977 and that the very prayer for treating the plaintiffs as the persons managing the temple affairs is not correct and unsustainable in law much less the further prayer for permanent injunction, which is equally not sustainable. On such grounds, the defendants 1 and 2 would pray to dismiss the suit with costs. 6. On such grounds, the defendants 1 and 2 would pray to dismiss the suit with costs. 6. The third defendant would file a separate written statement and while adopting the written statement filed on behalf of the defendants 1 and 2, this defendant besides denying the allegations of the plaint, would also submit that the plaintiffs were not in administration of the temple either as Nattanmaitharar or in any capacity: that this defendant has been appointed ‘Thakkar’ of the suit temple on 3.9.1986 and the said order was also communicated to the plaintiffs; that this defendant was also directed by the second defendant to assume charge and the 7th plaintiff was directed to hand over the charge in pursuance of the order dated 3.9.1986 pursuant to which the second defendant has taken over charge of the management of the temple even on 5.9.1986 and this was intimated to defendants 1 and 2 as early as on 5.9.1986: that the plaintiffs are therefore estopped from contending that they are still in management of the temple and that the plaintiffs, taking advantage of the injunction order passed in their favour are trying to break open the Hundi and enrich themselves with the monies in the Hundi. On such grounds, the defendants would pray to dismiss the suit with costs. 7. On these pleadings by parties, the trail Court having initially framed eight issues for determination of the suit and later modifying the same in different form, making the issues six in number, would conduct the trial into the facts pleaded and the circumstances brought forth by parties, during which, on the part of the plaintiffs, they would not only examine five witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 5, P.W.1 being the 7th plaintiff, P.W.2 being the third plaintiff and P.W.3 being the 6th plaintiff, but also would mark 12 documents as Exs.A-1 to A-12, Exs.A-1 to A-3 being the invitations for Brahmotsavams, Ex.A-9 being the book containing the proceedings of the temple affairs, Exs.A-10 and A-11 being the orders made in A.P.No.18 of 1981, dated 12.6.1986 and Ex.A-12 being the proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner, H.R.& C.E., Cuddalore. 8. 8. On the contrary, on the part of the defendants, they would examine the third defendant as the sole witness on behalf of the defendants as D.W.1 besides marking two documents as Exs.B-1 and B-2, Ex.B-1 being the order dated 16.2.1977 made in O.A.No.228 of 1976 by the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Trichy and Ex.B-2 being the order dated 11.12.1975 made in R.P.No.288/75 by the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Chennai. 9. In appreciation of the facts and circumstances pleaded by parties in the light of these evidence made available on record and having its own discussion and appreciation of evidence, the trial Court would ultimately arrive at the conclusion to dismiss the suit with costs and dismissing the same accordingly. It is only testifying the validity of the judgment and decree thus passed by the trial Court, dated 6.11.1987, the plaintiffs have come forward to prefer the above appeal suit on grounds as brought forth in the grounds of appeal. 10. It is only testifying the validity of the judgment and decree thus passed by the trial Court, dated 6.11.1987, the plaintiffs have come forward to prefer the above appeal suit on grounds as brought forth in the grounds of appeal. 10. During arguments, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, besides giving a picture of the facts and circumstances encircling the whole case and narrating the history as to how the appeal came to be preferred by the appellants, would submit that on dismissal of their application filed before the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Trichy, the appellants/ plaintiffs preferred on appeal before the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. and the same also having failed to yield good result in their favour, ultimately, the appellants filed the statutory suit in O.S.No.98 of 1986 only to set aside the order of the Commissioner: that both sides let in evidence in the trial held by the lower Court and also they marked documents, but the Court below has decided the same otherwise than on merit; that the suit concerned with the appeal, filed in O.S.No.98 of 1986 by the plaintiffs was to set aside the order of the Commissioner, dismissing the appeal preferred before him as per his order dated 29.1.1986 made in A.P.No.18 of 1984 and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession, administration and enjoyment of Sri Arulmigu Mariamman Temple, V.Marudur, Villupuram: that earlier an application in R.P.No.228 of 1976 had been filed before the respondents to declare the plaintiffs herein as the hereditary trustees of the two suit temples and the same had been dismissed and no appeal was preferred and since it was an application filed under the protection granted under Art.26 of the Constitution of India for declaring the temple as denominational temple entitled to the protection as held in the case delivered by this Court in The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Salem, having his office at Aravaneri, Salem and two others v. Nattamai K.S.Ellappa Mudaliar and eleven others The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Salem, having his office at Aravaneri, Salem and two others v. Nattamai K.S.Ellappa Mudaliar and eleven others The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Salem, having his office at Aravaneri, Salem and two others v. Nattamai K.S.Ellappa Mudaliar and eleven others 100 L.W. 240 and the present case being for different reliefs, the suit should not have been dismissed citing the earlier order passed and stating that this suit, which has absolutely no connection with the earlier order, to have been barred by limitation: that the suit connected with the appeal is entirely on different basis and it is not at all barred by limitation since it had been filed in time after the passing of the order of the Commissioner and therefore the lower Court is wrong in arriving at the conclusion to dismiss the suit on that score. The learned counsel would lament that the lower Court should have gone into the merit of the case and decided the suit in its entirety. 11. The learned counsel would further argue that the lower Court has also remarked that the suit had not been filed along with an application underO.1, Rule 8 of the C.P.C. seeking permission of the Court to file the suit in the representative capacity since some of the members of the Vanniyar and Yadava communities have come forward to institute the suit as the plaintiffs on behalf of all those belonging to those communities. The learned counsel would point out that it is not a suit filed under the C.P.C. but it is an application filed under Sec.64(1) of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner and on appeal before the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. under Sec.69(1) of the Act and on rejection of their application and the appeal, the suit was filed under Sec.70(1) of the Act and now it is the appeal under Sec.70(2) of the Act preferred by the plaintiffs in the suit. The learned counsel would try to impress on this Court on such arguments that since it is a suit filed under the relevant provisions embodied in the act, which is a Special Act meant for the purpose of temple affairs, it is wrong on the part of the lower Court to have sought for an application to be filed, seeking permission of the Court to file the suit in the representative capacity underO.1, Rule 8 of the C.P.C. which is wrong. On such arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants would pray to allow the above appeal suit, setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 12. On such arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants would pray to allow the above appeal suit, setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 12. In reply, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent would try to impress upon the Court that the lower Court was right in dismissing the suit on legal considerations citing the same judgment reported in The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Salem, having his office at Aravaneri, Salem and two others v. Nattamai K.S.Ellappa Mudaliar and eleven others The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Salem, having his office at Aravaneri, Salem and two others v. Nattamai K.S.Ellappa Mudaliar and eleven others The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Salem, having his office at Aravaneri, Salem and two others v. Nattamai K.S.Ellappa Mudaliar and eleven others 100 L.W. 240 and would say that it is held therein that, ‘the suit, out of which the second appeals arise, is not maintainable inasmuch as the plaintiffs have failed to follow the procedure prescribed underO.1, Rule 8, C.P.C., hence the suit to be dismissed on that ground. The learned counsel would also submit that the other reasons assigned by the lower Court, such as the limitation point and the third respondent being in possession of the temple affairs and the right of the third respondent appointed as ‘fit person’ to the suit temple are proper and therefore no interference of this Court is warranted in the circumstances of the case and would ultimately pray to dismiss the appeal suit with costs. 13. 13. In consideration of the pleadings by parties, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, what comes to be known is that it is a suit filed by the plaintiffs, numbering eight, before the Court of Subordinate Judge, Villupuram, since they were aggrieved against the dismissal order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Trichy in a petition filed by the plaintiffs and one Kuppusamy under Sec.64(1) of the Act for settlement of a scheme of administration in O.A.No.76 of 1978 and thereafter on an appeal preferred before the first respondent/ Commissioner under Sec.69(1) of the said Act in A.P.18 of 1981, the same was dismissed by the first respondent also and therefore not only challenging the said order passed by the first respondent confirming the order of the second respondent in rejecting the appeal filed by the plaintiffs seeking to set aside the same but also to issue permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner with the peaceful possession, administration and enjoyment of the suit temple Sri Arulmigu Mariamman Temple and for costs, the plaintiffs have filed the statutory suit under Sec.70(1) of the Act before the Court below. 14. On the other hand, the suit would be stoutly defended by the defendants pleading that it is not a temple for the sole benefit of the Yadavas and Vanniyars as falsely alleged on the part of the plaintiffs but all the community people are entitled to worship the deity and therefore the temple is a public one and not a private temple as it is falsely alleged by the plaintiffs. They would also submit that the Department took over the management of the temple as early as in the year 1975 itself appointing five persons as the Trustees and a revision filed against such appointment by one Kuppusamy Naidu also got dismissed and it has become final; that an application filed by the plaintiffs and Kuppusamy Naidu for declaring them as the hereditary trustees was also dismissed as per order in O.A.No.228 of 1976, dated 16.2.1976, and since no appeal was preferred against such order, it has become final: that they also appointed a fit person on 11.5.1977 and he is in-charge of the affairs of the temple and the application filed under Sec.64(1) of the Act by the plaintiffs for framing a scheme treating the temple as a community temple had also been dismissed on 24.3.1980 and an appeal preferred against the order also came to be dismissed by the Commissioner, as a result of which, they have filed the suit as a statutory one under Sec.76(1) of the Act. 15. 15. During arguments, the focus of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants is that the lower Court, though framed proper issues based on the pleadings by parties and conducted a thorough trial allowing the parties to examine oral and documentary evidence, in which five witnesses on the part of the plaintiffs and one witness on the side of the defendants have been examined and 12 documents on the side of the plaintiffs and two documents on the side of the defendants have been marked as exhibits and in spite of such opportunity afforded to parties to exhaust their remedies, the Court below never thought to fit to pass a judgment in full consideration of the facts, circumstances and the position of law encircling the whole affair connected to the suit, but in a slipshod manner, has passed the judgment dismissing the suit on technical and legal grounds that the earlier application filed on the part of the petitioners had been dismissed ten years back on which they did not prefer any appeal and that has become final and therefore the suit is hopelessly time barred: that the plaintiffs have not filed the suit under the representative capacity nor any application filed underO.1, Rule 8, C.P.C. seeking permission from the Court to represent the Vanniyar and Yadava communities but remarking that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit temple and have come forward to file the suit as against the definite orders passed by the respondent officials. On the contrary, the act of the lower Court in deciding the matter, as aforementioned, would be justified by the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 16. In the above facts and circumstances, the points that arise for consideration are: (1) Whether the lower Court is right in dismissing the suit for want of an application underO.1, Rule 8 of the C.P.C. and without framing any issue to this effecte and (2) Whether it is right on the part of the trial Court to have decided the case on the question of limitation without specific issue being framed to that effect and without going into the merit of the case? 17. 17. A peep into the judgment of the trial Court would reveal that though six issues have been framed, no issue has been framed to consider the non-seeking of the permission of the Court by the plaintiffs by filing a petition underO.1, Rule 8 of the C.P.C. for the appellants having filed the suit in the representative capacity of the Vanniyar and Yadava communities. This point has been taken up for consideration by the Court below only in its judgment, without any opportunity for the plaintiffs to contest the same no does it seem that this point has been pleaded by the defendants in their pleadings. It should also be decided here whether there is a legal requirement on the part of the plaintiffs to file this application which is embodied in C.P.C. in a case of the nature of the suit in hand which has been filed as a statutory suit under the relevant provisions of the Act, which is a Special Act as argued by the learned counsel for the appellants/ plaintiffs. 18. Though it is a legal requirement that is embodied in the C.P.C., it is argued on the part of the learned counsel for the appellants that it is not binding in a statutory suit like this, which is purely governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, which is a Special Act. 18. Though it is a legal requirement that is embodied in the C.P.C., it is argued on the part of the learned counsel for the appellants that it is not binding in a statutory suit like this, which is purely governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, which is a Special Act. Though this argument would barely appear to be gratifying, still it is relevant to look into the proposition held by a single Judge of this Court in the context of the requirement of an application to be filed underO.1, Rule 8 of the C.P.C. in the judgment reported in The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Salem, having his office at Aravaneri, Salem v. Nattamai K.S.Ellappa Mudaliar The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Salem, having his office at Aravaneri, Salem v. Nattamai K.S.Ellappa Mudaliar The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Salem, having his office at Aravaneri, Salem v. Nattamai K.S.Ellappa Mudaliar 100 L.W. 240 holding that even if parties do not plead such questions of law, it is the bounden duty of the Court to consider such legal questions and deliver the judgment in accordance with the provision of law, which is in no manner less important since the proposition has been held by the learned Judge in an H.R. & C.E. case itself wherein the Assistant Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Salem is a party. Therefore, the argument advanced on the part of the learned counsel for the appellants that part of the learned counsel for the appellants that for a case arising out of the provisions of H.R. & C.E., the general provisions of law, such as the C.P.C., needs discussion and clarity. Though the suit is a statutory one filed under the provisions of the said Act, so far as the procedural aspects are concerned, it is not absolutely necessary that the said enactment should contain all those procedures that are necessary for a civil suit to be decided on trial. 19. Though the suit is a statutory one filed under the provisions of the said Act, so far as the procedural aspects are concerned, it is not absolutely necessary that the said enactment should contain all those procedures that are necessary for a civil suit to be decided on trial. 19. It is relevant to be borne in mind at this juncture that it is not an application that is being dealt with by those authorities specified in the Act so as to strictly adhere to the Rules contemplated therein alone but though the Act provides for a statutory suit to be filed in civil forum of law it cannot be said that all the procedures that are binding on the Civil Court to be followed for the trial to be held till the judgment is delivered. The Civil Court has to seek recourse to the Civil Procedure Code whenever it is required and wherever it is necessary, the moment the case falls into the hands of the civil Court. The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act has only provided for a statutory suit to be filed, but it has not laid down the procedures to be adopted by the Civil Court in the conduct of the trial. Therefore, the argument advanced on the part of the learned counsel for the appellants to the effect that since the subject matter is confined to the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, which is a special enactment, no Civil Procedure could be followed nor expected to be exhausted, does not hold water especially in such event, where such procedures are found lacking by the Civil Court in the process of conduct of trial in the statutory suit. In such circumstances, there cannot also be a bar created restraining the Civil Court from resorting to the relevant provisions of law that are to be undergone particularly where the procedural aspects contained in the special enactment is inadequate or found wanting. 20. In such circumstances, there cannot also be a bar created restraining the Civil Court from resorting to the relevant provisions of law that are to be undergone particularly where the procedural aspects contained in the special enactment is inadequate or found wanting. 20. Therefore, it is only desirable for the Court to consider such procedures established under law as it has been done in the case in hand by the lower Court, but at the same time, parties without knowing whether such requirements would be expected by the Court, would not either let in evidence or argue the position of law particularly when it is a mixed question of law and fact and therefore it is always desirable rather incumbent on the part of the trial Court to frame an issue in this regard for taking proper defence by parties or to come out with their case regarding that legal point, thus affording an opportunity for parties to meet the point. Therefore, for parties to be afforded with such opportunity, it is always desirable to frame an issue pertaining to that aspect of the case as it is normally framed regarding the point of limitation, even though it is a question of law. 21. Normally, the issues are not framed by Courts wherein it is a legal point that is involved nor even it is necessary to be pleaded since it is well settled that pleading is necessary for facts and not for law. However, of late, it is evolved that pleading is also necessary for mixed questions of law and fact. Now, in these circumstances, we have attained a stage that even if it is a pure question of law, pleading is necessary so as to make room for the Court to frame an issue on that point and affording an opportunity for parties to either let in evidence or argue on the same. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. 22. In the case in hand, neither it has been pleaded nor has there been an issue framed on the question of requirement of an application to be filed underO.1, Rule 8 of the C.P.C. seeking permission of the Court to file the suit in the representative capacity, so as to afford sufficient opportunities for the parties to contest the said point for a valid conclusion to be arrived at by the Court. But, since the lower Court has resorted to deal with the said provision of law, which is outside the purview of the Special Act, under which the suit has been filed, the parties were left in wilderness without being in a position to make out, whether it is necessary on their part to contest the same or to let in evidence or to argue on the said point of law and therefore it has to be held here that the lower Court has decided this point without sufficient or reasonable opportunity for parties, especially the plaintiffs, to contest the same. 23. Coming to the other question of limitation also, it is found that the earlier petition had been filed entirely for different relief by the plaintiffs herein and that should not be the reason to obstruct the chances of the plaintiffs claiming their other rights, if any, relating to the suit temple and therefore citing the dismissal of the application filed by the plaintiffs and another ten years back for a different relief, the lower Court arriving at the conclusion that this suit, which is on different footing and for different reliefs, to be time barred, is neither fair on the part of the lower Court nor legal and therefore at this score also, the judgment of the lower Court is not sustainable. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. In result, (i) for all the discussions held, the above Appeal Suit succeeds and the same is allowed; (ii) the judgment and decree dated 6.11.1987 rendered in O.S.No.98 of 1986 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Villupuram is hereby set aside: (iii) however, in the circumstances of the case, the case is remanded to the trial Court itself for deciding the suit in consideration of all the facts, circumstances and the position of law involved in the entire suit and after framing issues, as indicated in the foregoing paragraphs, to decide the suit in its entirety on merits and in accordance with law with further opportunity for parties to be heard: (iv) since it is a long pending matter, yet another direction is issued to the lower Court to take up the matter out of turn and on priority basis and complete the trial procedures and deliver the judgment within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment: and (v) both parties are directed to appear before the lower Court on 5.3.2001. 24. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.