Judgment :- P.R. Shivakumar, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai dated 22. 1992 made in O.S.No.154 of 1986. The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. (Administration) Department, Chennai-34, who figured as defendant in the suit is the appellant herein. The plaintiffs 2 to 7 In the suit are the respondents in this appeal. 2. The deceased Veeraswami Poosari, who figured as the first plaintiff in the suit and Palani Poosari, the present first respondent who figured as the second plaintiff in the suit, preferred a Original Application under Section 63(b) of Act 22 of 1959 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Nagapattinam for a declaration that they held office of the trusteeship of Sri Kamatchi Amman temple also called as Mariamman temple situated at Peravoor Village, Mayiladuthurai Taluk as hereditary trustees. The said Original Application was later on, transferred to the file of the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, Mayiladuthurai on administrative grounds and numbered as O.A.No.63 of 1980. The said application was filed pursuant to the notification issued by the Assistant Commissioner. H.R. & C.E. Department, Kumbakonam calling for applications from the public for appointment of non-hereditary trustees to the said temple. After enquiry, the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, Mayiladuthurai by an order dated 28. 1983 dismissed the said application holding that the office of trusteeship of the said temple was not hereditary. 3. As against the said order of the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, Mayiladuthurai, the deceased first plaintiff and the second plaintiff preferred an appeal under Section 69(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959 to the Commissioner, H.R & C.E. Department, Chennai in A.P.No.118 of 1983. The Commissioner. H.R. & C.E. Department, Chennai (the appellant in this appeal), after hearing the Appeal Petition preferred before him, dismissed the said appeal petition by an order dated 14. 1986, confirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, Mayiladuthurai. The Commissioner. H.R. & C.E. Department, Chennai (the appellant in this appeal), after hearing the Appeal Petition preferred before him, dismissed the said appeal petition by an order dated 14. 1986, confirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, Mayiladuthurai. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal of the Appeal Petition, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 filed a statutory suit under Section 70(1) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959) before the learned Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai to set aside the order of the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. (Administration) Department, Chennai by which the order of the Deputy Commissioner, H.R & C.E. Department, Mayiladuthurai had been confirmed. The suit was taken on file in the Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai as O.S.No.154 of 1986. 4. The averments based on which the relief was sought for in the suit, in brief, are as follows: (a) The suit temple viz. Sri Kamatchi amman temple also called as Mariamman temple, situated in Peravoor Village, Mayiladuthurai Taluk was originally founded by the descendants of the Ministers of Great Chola Regime, Initially, the temple’s deity had been installed in very small tiled building and the management of the temple had been entrusted to one Arumuga Padayachi, the paternal ancestor of the second plaintiff (first respondent herein). For more than three generations and over 60 years, the management of the temple was with the above said Arumuga Padayachi and his descendants. (b) It was Narayana Poosari, son of grand father of the first appellant/second defendant who collected huge amounts from the village public and outsiders and converted the tilted structure into a Vimanam with a Kalasam. After a period of about 30 to 40 years, he again put up an-Artha Mandapam in front of the sanctum-sanctorum. Thereafter, Singaram Poosari, the father of the second plaintiff and the deceased first plaintiff Veeraswami Poosari put up a Maha Mandapam to the temple. The plaintiffs 1 to 2 also did Maha Kumbabishekam on a grand scale in the year 1966. The temple had small holdings of land which were leased out and the rent derived was being utilized by the plaintiffs 1 and 2 for pooja services and upkeepment of the temple. (c) Arumuga Padayachi had three sons viz. Kuppmuthu Poosari, Parimala Poosari and Mamundi Poosari. The temple had small holdings of land which were leased out and the rent derived was being utilized by the plaintiffs 1 and 2 for pooja services and upkeepment of the temple. (c) Arumuga Padayachi had three sons viz. Kuppmuthu Poosari, Parimala Poosari and Mamundi Poosari. Parimala Poosari did not have any male issue and he had only one daughter by name Marimuthu. The said Marimuthu D/o. Parimala Poosari also died leaving behind her one son by name Ramu, who died issueless. Mamundi and his wife Rohini did not have any male issue. Therefore, they adopted the deceased first plaintiff Veeraswami Poosari who was their grandson through their only daughter Kannammal. As the deceased first plaintiff Veerasami Poosari was an adopted son of Mamundi and Rohini, he succeeded to the management of the temple as hereditary trustee, Kuppamuthu Poosari’s great grandson is Palani Poosari, the first respondent herein (second plaintiff in? the suit). As such, at the time of filing the suit, the deceased first plaintiff Veeraswami Poosari and Palani Poosari, the first respondent herein (second plaintiff) were in the management of the suit temple as hereditary trustees. Besides looking after the management of the temple, they did the pooja services to the deities as it was done by their ancestors. In short, they were functioning as hereditary trustees cum Poosaris of the suit temple uninterruptedly for more than three generations. No one else ever acted as hereditary or non-hereditary trustee of the suit temple. Since all of a sudden, the Assistant Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department chose to call for applications for appointment of non-hereditary trustees, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 were constrained to file an Original application under Section 63(b) of the Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959 before the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, Mayiladuthurai, then an Appeal Petition before the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. (Administration) Department, Chennai and thereafter a statutory suit under Section 70(1) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959). 5. During the pendency of the suit, the first plaintiff died and the plaintiffs 3 to 7 (respondents 2 to 6 in the appeal) were impleaded as his legal heirs. The suit was resisted by the appellant herein (sole defendant) by filing a written statement containing the following allegations: (i) The suit temple is an ancient temple administered by the villagers of Peravoor. Mayiladuthurai Taluk. The suit was resisted by the appellant herein (sole defendant) by filing a written statement containing the following allegations: (i) The suit temple is an ancient temple administered by the villagers of Peravoor. Mayiladuthurai Taluk. The temple is a listed institution under the administrative control of the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, Mayiladuthurai and has been duly assessed for contribution. The plaintiffs’ allegation that the management of the temple had been entrusted to one Arumuga Padayachi is totally false and baseless. The contention that the temple’s day today management and upkeepment remain vested with the family of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 for more than 60 years un-interruptedly is equally false. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 and their ancestors were only poosaris doing Pooja services in the temple. The villagers have constructed the temple and they are managing the temple’s today administration. One Sambasiva Iyer, a resident of Peravoor village had been in management of the temple for 15 years, and it was he who was instrumental for the thiruppani works of the temple, One Dhandayudhapani has also given a statement to the effect that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 were only poosaris of the temple. (ii) The claims of the hereditary trusteeship by the plaintiffs 1 and 2 totally baseless. The suit temple was brought under the administration of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments department in the year 1971 itself and V. Kalyanasundaram Pillai, M. Ramasamy Pillai, V. Perumal Naidu, K. Sambandam and Narayanasamy Devar were appointed as nonhereditary trustees and in fact, they administered the said temple till the year 1975. Thereafter, the Executive officer of Thirumanancherry temple was appointed as the Fit person of the suit temple. Subsequently, Executive Officers of the department and Inspectors of the department were appointed as fit persons to the suit temple. As on the date of suit, the Inspector, H.R. & C.E. Department, Kuttalam was administering the affairs of the temple as fit person. In fact, the temple was under the administration and management of the villagers headed by village Nattamaikarars. The ancestors of plaintiffs 1 and 2 at the, best could have been co-opted by the Nattamaikarars in their capacity as Poojaris of the temple. At no point of time, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 administered the religious institution. In fact, the temple was under the administration and management of the villagers headed by village Nattamaikarars. The ancestors of plaintiffs 1 and 2 at the, best could have been co-opted by the Nattamaikarars in their capacity as Poojaris of the temple. At no point of time, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 administered the religious institution. As they are poosaris, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 have no locus standi to file a suit, claiming hereditary trusteeship. Hence, the suit should be dismissed with cost. 6. The Trial Judge framed the following issues: (i) Whether the plaintiffs are only poosaris of the suit temple? Whether they are not hereditary trustees of the suit temple? (ii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of declaration sought for in the plaint? (iii) To what relief the plaintiffs are entitled? 7. Including the deceased first plaintiff Veeraswami Poosari, four witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.4 and Exhibits A-1 to A-213 were marked on the side of the plaintiffs. D.W.1 alone was examined and Exhibits B-1 to B-53 were marked on the side of the defendant (appellant herein). 8. The Court below considered the pleadings made by the parties and also the evidence, both oral and documentary. After hearing the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and upon such consideration, it came to the conclusion that the case of the plaintiffs stood proved and that the plaintiffs were entitled to the relief sought for in the plaint. Accordingly, the trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for with costs by its judgment dated 22. 1992. 9. Aggrieved by and questioned the correctness of the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, the present appeal has been preferred by the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. (administration) Department, Chennai, the appellant herein, on various grounds set out in the memorandum of appeal. 10. The point that arises for consideration in the appeal is as follows: Whether the respondents/plaintiffs are the hereditary trustee-cum-poojaris of the suit temple? Whether they are entitled to the declaration to that effect? 11. The sole defendant in the suit has preferred the appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court as the suit has been decreed as prayed for. Whether they are entitled to the declaration to that effect? 11. The sole defendant in the suit has preferred the appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court as the suit has been decreed as prayed for. The suit was originally filed by one Veeraswami poosari (the deceased first plaintiff) and Palani Poosari (first respondent herein/second plaintiff) to set aside the order passed by the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, Chennai dated 14. 1986 made in A.P.No.118 of 1983 and for a decree declaring that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 as hereditary trustees of the suit temple. The necessity to seek a declaration that the office of the trusteeship of the temple is hereditary arose when the area Assistant commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department published a notification calling for applications from the public for appointments as non-hereditary trustees to the suit temple. The suit temple is a small temple situated in Peravoor village, Mayiladuthurai Taluk called Sri Kamatchi ammal temple which is also called Mariamman temple. 12. According to the plaintiffs’ case, the temple was originally founded by the ministers of Chola Regime and they entrusted the management of the temple to the forefather of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 by name Arumuga padayachi and thereafter, for more than three generations and more than 60 years, the management of the temple continued to be with the family members of the plaintiffs hereditarily and no one else outside the family of the plaintiffs ever functioned as trustee of the temple or took part in the management of the temple. On the other hand, it is the case of the appellant/defendant that the temple was constructed by the villagers of Peravoor and that it was managed by the villagers through their representatives before ever the H.R. & C.E. department took over the management of the temple by appointing non-hereditary trustees and fit person. It is the further case of the appellant/defendant that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 were only Poosaris of the temple and they never took part in the management of the temple. The claim of the plaintiffs was negatived by the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department at the first instance and then by the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. (Administration) Chennai (appellant herein). The claim of the plaintiffs was negatived by the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department at the first instance and then by the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. (Administration) Chennai (appellant herein). However, in the statutory suit preferred against the order of the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. (Administration) Department, Chennai (appellant herein) the Court below accepted the contentions of the plaintiffs, set aside the order of the Commissioner and granted a decree declaring the plaintiffs 2 to 7 as the hereditary trustees of the suit temple. 13. The learned Additional Government Pleader, (H.R. & C.E.), advancing the arguments on behalf of the appellant, has submitted that the judgment of the Court below decreeing the suit as prayed for is erroneous contrary to law and against the weight of evidence and probabilities of the case; that the Court below failed to note that the plaintiffs were only Poosaris of the temple and were not trustees of the temple; that the learned Subordinate Judge failed to note that the trustees appointed by the department were functioning long prior to the claim made by the plaintiffs as hereditary trustees and that the plaintiffs were doing only pooja services to the temple; that the Court below committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the amount paid as electricity charges under Exhibits B-39 and B-52 were paid by the plaintiffs; that the learned subordinate judge should have found that Exhibit B-38 dated 8. 1971 would disprove the claim of the plaintiffs to trusteeship and that Exhibits B-26 to 28 would show that the plaintiffs never acted as hereditary trustees. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant argued further that there was no proof regarding alleged adoption of the second plaintiff and that the performance of necessary ceremonies and qualification of the person adopted had not been substantiated by proper evidence. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant argued further that there was no proof regarding alleged adoption of the second plaintiff and that the performance of necessary ceremonies and qualification of the person adopted had not been substantiated by proper evidence. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that when lands were given to the deities under Exhibits A-119 one Narayanasamy Padayachi was shown only as a poosari and the absence of any reference to him as trustee would prove that he was not a trustee of the temple at any point of time; that the Court below failed to properly appreciate the documents produced on the side of the appellant/defendant; that the trial Court committed an error in not distinguishing the offices of the trusteeship and poojariship in a religious institution and failed to note that the Poosari being a servant of the institution could not make a claim to the trusteeship; that the suit itself should have been rejected as not maintainable as the requirement of the services of the notice under Sections 80 C.P.C. were not complied with and that viewed from any angle, the judgment and decree of the Court below should be held unsustainable in law. 15. 15. Per contra, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents in the appeal that the well considered judgment and decree of the trial Court deserve no interference in the appeal; that the Court below on a proper appreciation of evidence and convinced by the overwhelming evidence both oral and documentary adduced on the side of the plaintiffs, rightly accepted the claim of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit; that it is not uncommon for small village temples like suit temple to have the office of trusteeship and Poosariship vested in one and the same person or same sets of persons hereditarily; that compared with the overwhelming evidence adduced on the side of the plaintiffs to establish their stand that for more than three generations and more than 60 years, the management of the suit temple continuously and without any interruption stood vested with the family of the plaintiffs who were also poosaris of the temple, there is absence of clinching evidence on the side of the appellant/defendant either to disprove the case of the plaintiffs that they were hereditary trustees or to prove the defence case of the appellant/defendant that the temple was initially managed by the villagers through their representatives and then by the trustees and fit persons appointed by the Hindu Religious and charitable Endowments department; that the appellant/defendant failed to adduce clinching evidence to show that anybody other than members of the plaintiffs’ family ever functioned as trustee/trustees of the temple either on behalf of the villagers or as the trustees appointed by the department before the dispute arose; that none of the persons mentioned in the written statement to be the persons who were in the management of the temple as trustees, has been examined on the side of the appellant/defendant to substantiate the said stand of the appellant/defendant and that, on proper appreciation of evidence and by correctly applying the statutory provisions and law of precedents, the trial Court has arrived at a correct conclusion that the trusteeship continuously vested with the members of the plaintiffs’ family and hence, the plaintiffs were entitled to the relief sought for in the suit. 16. This Court paid is anxious considerations to the above said submissions made on either side. The materials available on record were also perused. 17. 16. This Court paid is anxious considerations to the above said submissions made on either side. The materials available on record were also perused. 17. Exhibits A-6 to A-40 and A-67 are the electricity receipts evidencing payment of electricity charges for the service connection provided to the suit temple. Exhibits 41 to 54, 201 to 212 are the kist receipts showing payment of kist to the Government in respect of lands belonging to the suit temple. Exhibits A-78 to 98, 198 and 213 have been produced as account books maintained by the plaintiffs. The above said documents will show that the plaintiffs and the members of their family were paying the kist to the Government in respect of the lands belongs to the suit temple and were making payment of electricity charges for the service connection provided to the temple. No explanation has been offered by the defendant as to how they were allowed to make such payments to Electricity Board and to Government if at all they were not trustees in management of the temple. No acceptable explanation is forthcoming from the appellant/defendant as to how the plaintiffs happened to possess the said documents if at all they did not make payments under the said documents. Therefore, it has to be construed that the payments under the above said electricity receipts and kist receipts were made by the plaintiffs. 18. Exhibits A-3 to A-5 are the electricity cards. Exhibits A-1 and A2 are chitta extract and adangal extract relating to the properties of the suit temple. Exhibits A-68 to A75 are the communications between the Executive officer and the deceased first plaintiff pursuant to a charge memo issued by the former to the latter. They also include memo for enquiry, show cause notice and reply for the said show cause notice. Exhibits A-76 and A77 also relate to the disciplinary actions sought to be taken against the first plaintiffs. Exhibit A-99 is also one such communication sent by the Inspector, H.R & C.E. Department, Kumbakonam to the first plaintiff, Exhibits A-100 to A-110 and A-112 to A-147 are letters written by various persons to the first plaintiff. Exhibit A-111 is a letter written by one Singaram of Peravoor village to one Balakrishnan. Exhibits A-148 to 197 are money order coupons evidencing the fact that many persons sent money for thirupani of the temple. Exhibit A-111 is a letter written by one Singaram of Peravoor village to one Balakrishnan. Exhibits A-148 to 197 are money order coupons evidencing the fact that many persons sent money for thirupani of the temple. All the above said documents were produced in order to show that the management and upkeepment of the temple were done by the plaintiffs and that all documents relating to the temple and its properties, were available only with the plaintiffs. 19. Apart from the said documentary evidence, four witnesses, including the deceased first plaintiff and the second plaintiff, were examined on the side of the plaintiffs. They (P.W.1 and P.W.4) confirmed and reiterated the stand of the plaintiffs taken in the original application filed before the Deputy Commissioner, in the Appeal Petition filed before the Commissioner and in the file suit before the Court below. Their testimonies are corroborated by two independent witnesses examined on the side of the plaintiffs viz. P.Ws. 2 and 3. They have stated in clear and unambiguous terms that the trusteeship continuously remained vested with the family of the plaintiffs and no one else ever functioned as trustees of the temple. They also clearly deposed to the effect that the plaintiffs and their forefathers were poosaris cum trustees of the suit temple and they were functioning in the said capacity hereditarily. On the other hand, the only witness examined on the side of the appellant/defendant is an official of the H.R. & C.E. department. None of the persons who allegedly functioned as trustees of the suit temple either nominated by the villagers or appointed by the department of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments as stated in the written statement has been examined on the side of the appellant/defendant. No document has been marked on the side of the appellant/defendant to show that such appointments of non-hereditary trustees were made or that any person outside the family of the plaintiffs ever functioned as a trustee of the suit temple. 20. Exhibits B-9 to B-19 and B-35 are various entries found in the auction register. Exhibits B-20 to B26 are the registers relating to Hundi and various entries made in the said registers. Except the document viz. Exhibit B-39 relating to 12. 1985, other documents are vouchers, letters, one account book (Exhibit B-36) and electricity receipts Exhibits B-39 to B-51) relating to the period from November 1974 to March 1976. Exhibits B-20 to B26 are the registers relating to Hundi and various entries made in the said registers. Except the document viz. Exhibit B-39 relating to 12. 1985, other documents are vouchers, letters, one account book (Exhibit B-36) and electricity receipts Exhibits B-39 to B-51) relating to the period from November 1974 to March 1976. Notice issued by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has been marked as Exhibit B 52. The resolution allegedly passed by the villagers on 212. 1978 has been marked as Exhibit B-53. 21. The plaintiffs have stated in their plaint that the descendants of the ministers of Chola Regime founded the temple and handed over the same to Arumuga Padayachi, the forefather of the plaintiffs for managing the suit temple. However, except the oral testimony of P.W.1, there is no other evidence to show that the temple was founded by the descendants of ministers of Chola King. In the absence of such a clinching evidence on the side of the plaintiffs regarding when the temple was founded and who founded the temple, we have to seek the help of the evidence adduced on the side of the defendant to find out who was the founder of the temple and when was the temple founded. In this regard, equally there is no documentary evidence adduced on the side of the defendant. There is not even reliable oral testimony. The only witness examined on the side of the defendant was the employee of the H.R. & C.E. Department employed as Inspector. He would simply state that the temple was constructed by villagers and the same was managed by the villagers through their representatives till the management of the temple was sought to be taken by the H.R. & C.E. Department in the year 1971. But the said evidence of P.W.1 is also not so assertive. Naturally in the absence of any document based on which D.W.1 could have come to know that the temple was founded by the villagers and administered by the villagers, he cannot assert as he would not have any personal knowledge of the same. The oral evidence of D.W.1 shall be of no use for the defendant to substantiate the contention of the appellant/defendant. 22. The oral evidence of D.W.1 shall be of no use for the defendant to substantiate the contention of the appellant/defendant. 22. Section 6(11) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 defines “Hereditary Trustee” as follows: “6(11) “Hereditary trustee” means the trustee of a religious institution, the succession to whose office devolves by hereditary right or is regulated by usage or is specifically provided for by the founder, so long as such scheme of succession is in force”. Section 63(b) gives power to the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be, to decide whether a trustee holds or held office as a hereditary trustee. There is no other provision which prescribes a condition that the temple should have been founded by the forefathers of the persons making a claim to hereditary trusteeship in order to succeed in such a claim. The only requirement found in Section 6(11) of the Act is that the office should devolve by hereditary right or should be regulated by usage or should be specifically provided for by the founder. Though there is a plea on the part of the plaintiffs that the founder nominated Arumuga Padayachi to manage the temple and handed over the management of the temple to him, as we have already seen there is no clinching evidence to prove, who founded the temple. Therefore, we cannot come to the conclusion that the succession to the office of the trusteeship of the suit temple was specifically provided by the founder. On the other hand, when there is a clear pleading to the effect that the management remained vested with the members of the plaintiffs family hereditarily from time memorial and no one outside the family of the plaintiffs was in the management of the temple, then the plea should be taken as one on of the two conditions found in Section 6(11) viz. (i) the office devolves by hereditary right or (ii) the devolution to the office is regulated by usage. 23. The plaintiffs have made a clear averment to the effect that Arumuga Padayachi was in the management of the temple for several years till he died and thereafter, the management of the temple was with the descendants of Arumuga Padayachi. In addition to the testimony of P.Ws 1 and 4, the plaintiffs have also examined two independent witnesses viz. P.Ws. 2 and 3. In addition to the testimony of P.Ws 1 and 4, the plaintiffs have also examined two independent witnesses viz. P.Ws. 2 and 3. P.W.2 was functioning as karnam of the village in which the suit temple is situated for about 45 years. It is his clear testimony that the suit temple was administered and managed by the plaintiffs; that the plaintiffs did Kumbabishekam and that the lands belonging to the temple viz. a small extent of 34 cents was also in the management of the plaintiffs. P.W.3 is an elderly person residing in a neighbouring village. P.W.3 has also stated in clear terms that to his knowledge the suit temple was administered and managed by the forefather of the plaintiffs by name Narayanaswamy, then by his son Singaram Padayachi and thereafter by the plaintiffs. He has also stated that the plaintiffs, besides doing poojas in the temple, are looking after the management and upkeepment of the temple. He has also stated that the landed properties belonging to the temple were managed by the first plaintiff. When such clear evidence has been advanced on the side of the plaintiffs, there is want of evidence on the side of the defendant to prove the defendant’s case that the temple was founded by the villagers or managed by the villagers or that the management of the temple was with any one outside the family of the plaintiffs at any point of time. When the oral evidence adduced on both sides alone is considered, it can be concluded that there is clinching evidence on the side of the plaintiffs to show that at least from the period of the great grand father of the second plaintiff viz. Narayana Padayachi the temple had been managed by the members of the plaintiffs’ family alone and no other person outside the family of the plaintiffs ever functioned as trustee of the temple. 24. Exhibit A-199 is the Inam settlement deed dated 27. 1910. One Ramachandran has donated the land to the suit temple under the said document. In the said deed, he has stated that the, land was handed over to Narayanasami Padayachi who was doing Pooja in the suit temple. 24. Exhibit A-199 is the Inam settlement deed dated 27. 1910. One Ramachandran has donated the land to the suit temple under the said document. In the said deed, he has stated that the, land was handed over to Narayanasami Padayachi who was doing Pooja in the suit temple. Relying on the said recital and pointing out that Narayanasami Padayachi was not described as trustee of the temple, it was contended on behalf of the appellant/defendant that the same would prove that he was not the trustee of the temple. Percontra, it was contended on behalf of the respondents/plaintiffs that illiterate rural mass including the forefathers of the plaintiffs were not conversant with the term “trustee” when the document was executed in the year 1910 and that is why, the person who was doing pooja in such a small temple was referred as the person to whom property was handed over as the representative of the temple. The said submission seems to be quite convincing. Apart from that, it is also the contention raised on behalf of the respondents/plaintiffs that if at all there was any other person in the management of the suit temple as trustee, then the property donated to the temple would not have been handed over to Narayanaswamy Padayachi who was a mere poosari. This Court finds substance in the contention raised by the respondents/plaintiffs. 25. Furthermore, there is no reliable evidence adduced on the side of the appellant/defendant to show that there was, any person outside the family of the plaintiff functioning as trustee of the suit temple earlier to 27. 1910. Nor was it the case of the appellant/defendant that Narayanaswami Padayachi was having the management of the temple as the representative of the villagers. Therefore, it is quite obvious that the respondents/plaintiffs have produced ancient documents to show that one of the forefathers of the plaintiffs by name Narayanaswami Padayachi was in the management of the temple at least from the year 1910. Thereafter, the said Narayanaswamy Padayachi had been paying kist in respect of properties belonging to the suit temple as evidenced by Exhibits A-41, 42, 44, 45, 201 to 212. These are the kist receipts of the year 1930, 1931 and 1934. Thereafter, the said Narayanaswamy Padayachi had been paying kist in respect of properties belonging to the suit temple as evidenced by Exhibits A-41, 42, 44, 45, 201 to 212. These are the kist receipts of the year 1930, 1931 and 1934. Similarly, Singarapadayachi, son of the above said Narayanaswamy Padayachi, who is also the father of the second plaintiff (fist respondent herein) paid kist for the properties of the suit temple in the year 1932, 1934 and 1935 as evidenced by Exhibits A-43, 46 and 47. The said Singaru Padayachi, father of the second plaintiff has also paid the kist for the properties belonging to the suit temple in the year 1946 and 1949 as evidenced by Exhibits A-49 and 51. It is also obvious from Exhibits A-201 to 212, the said Singaru Padayachi had been paying kist for the land belonging to the temple for the years 1973 to 1990 and the deceased first plaintiff Veeraswami Poosari paid kist for the temple properties for the years 1958 and 1959. Similarly, kist receipts showing that the first respondent/second plaintiff paid kist in respect of the properties of the suit temple have been produced as Exhibits A-41 to 54, 201, to 212. From the said documents, it is quite clear that from the year 1910 onwards, the plaintiffs’ forefathers and the plaintiffs were paying kist for the properties of the suit temple. The electricity receipts produced on the side of the plaintiffs as Exhibits A-6 to 40 and 67 will show that the plaintiffs got electricity connection temple and were paying electricity charges from the year 1983 onwards. On the other hand, the appellant/defendant who claims that the department look over the management of the temple in the year 1972 itself, has not chosen to pay the electricity charges. Similarly, the account books and the invitation for Kumbabhisekam and Lakcharchanai produced as Exhibits A-58 to 66 evidence that the plaintiffs have printed the invitation cards for doing the Kumbabhisekam and Lakcharchanai from the year 1973 to 1986. Exhibits A78 to 98 to show that the plaintiffs have maintained the accounts for Kumbabishekam and Lakcharchanai performed between the year 1968 to 1986. Exhibits A-100 to 110, A111 to 147 are the letters written by the devotees regarding Kumbabhisekam and Lakcharchanai. Exhibits A78 to 98 to show that the plaintiffs have maintained the accounts for Kumbabishekam and Lakcharchanai performed between the year 1968 to 1986. Exhibits A-100 to 110, A111 to 147 are the letters written by the devotees regarding Kumbabhisekam and Lakcharchanai. Similarly, Exhibits A-148 to 197 are money order coupons showing that the devotees had sent money directly by money order for having Archanai on their behalf. If at all the plaintiffs and their forefathers were functioning only as poosaris and not as trustees and there were some other persons looking after the management of the temple as trustees, the plaintiffs and the forefathers could not have been allowed to have such direct contact with devotees and to receive directly the fees for Archanai from the devotees. As such, this Court is convinced that there are sufficient evidence, both oral and documentary adduced on the side of the respondents/plaintiffs to show that the management of the temple stood vested with the plaintiffs and their forefathers at last from the year 1910 and that no other person outside the family of the plaintiffs ever functioned as trustee and took part in the management of the temple. 26. On the other hand, the only witness examined on the side of the appellant/defendant is none other than the Inspector of H.R. & C.E. Department who clearly admitted in his evidence that he was not aware of who was in management of the temple prior to 1972. It is the case of the appellant/defendant that in the year 1972, the management of the temple was taken over by the department. But, no order has been produced to show that any body was appointed as trustee to the suit temple and such person took the management and in fact looked after the management. If it is true that the management of the temple was taken by the department in the year 1972, then the Poosaris would have been paid their remuneration. There is no document to show that the plaintiffs or their forefathers were paid remuneration for the services rendered as Poosaris in the temple. On the other hand, it is candidately admitted by D.W.1 that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 were not paid any remuneration as poosaris either before or after 1972. There is no document to show that the plaintiffs or their forefathers were paid remuneration for the services rendered as Poosaris in the temple. On the other hand, it is candidately admitted by D.W.1 that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 were not paid any remuneration as poosaris either before or after 1972. The documents produced by the appellant/defendant would, at the best, show that there had been some kind of control exercised by the H.R. & C.E. Department regarding the administration of the suit temple only after 1971. Exhibits A-68 to 77 will show that there had been an attempted disciplinary action by the H.R. & C.E. Department against the deceased first plaintiff. A public temple having hereditary trustee is to be differentiated from a private temple. It can’t be said that the scheme of the H.R. & C.E. Act totally precludes any control over the management of the temples managed by hereditary trustee. Even in respect of such temples, powers are given to H.R. & C.E. department to exercise some kind of control and supervision. The documents produced on the side of the appellant/defendant will, at the best, show such a statutory control exercised by the officials of the H.R. & C.E. Department in respect of the affairs of the suit temple. Simply because such power of the Department was exercised, by no stretch of imagination it can be assumed that the office of the trusteeship of the suit temple is not hereditary. 27. The evidence adduced on both sides both oral and documentary, were considered. In proper perspective by the trial Court and the trial Court arrived at a correct conclusion that the preponderance of evidence would lead to the only conclusion that the plaintiffs were functioning as hereditary trustees cum poosaris of the suit temple and hence, the plaintiffs were entitled to the relief sought for in the plaint. In this regard, the judgment of a learned single judge of the Madras High Court in Andavar @ Adikkalam Kathaswami, Sivakami, Nalla Veerappaswami, Vinayagar etc. Temples of Peranam represented by their Poojari and Trustee, Kathaperumal Padayachi v. Periathambi Padayachi and Others (1951) 2 MLJ 232 it is worth noting. A contention similar to one raised by the appellant in this case had been raised by the opposite party in the said case viz. Temples of Peranam represented by their Poojari and Trustee, Kathaperumal Padayachi v. Periathambi Padayachi and Others (1951) 2 MLJ 232 it is worth noting. A contention similar to one raised by the appellant in this case had been raised by the opposite party in the said case viz. the management of the temple was done by the villagers whereas, the Poojari claimed trusteeship also in them. This Court in the said case has held that there shall be a presumption that Poojari is also the trustee when the management of the affairs of temple was done by such Poojari with the knowledge of the worshippers. In the said case, it was also held that there was nothing to show that any control was exercised over the Poojari regarding the manner in which he disposed of the collections and contribution made for the annual festival by the worshippers, and hence, the proper inference that would be drawn was that the Poojari was also the trustee of the temple. 28. In Babu Gurukkal v. Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board, Mount Road, Madras-2, (1964) 1 MLJ 384 , it has been, observed that small temple in South India often have only poojaris who, by long custom or usage, look after the affairs of the temples where they serve as gurukkals; that they function in a dual capacity viz. Poojari cum trustee and that such a combination of offices is not necessarily opposed to public policy or contrary to law. In Muthuswami Gurukal v. Aiyaswami Thevar and Sixteen Others (1964) 2 MLJ 560 , similar view was expressed. 29. The ratio laid down in the said judgments squarely apply to the case on hand. The suit temple in the case on hand is also a small village temple. There is no evidence to prove that anybody outside the family of the plaintiffs ever functioned as trustee or took part in the management of the temple. There is no evidence to prove any control exercised by the villagers over the poojari in respect of the affairs of the temple. The plaintiffs who are admittedly poojaris to the suit temple have maintained the accounts for the contribution made by the worshippers for the festivals like Kumbabhisekam and Lakcharchanai. No evidence to show that any, manner of control was exercised over them in respect of such collections. The plaintiffs who are admittedly poojaris to the suit temple have maintained the accounts for the contribution made by the worshippers for the festivals like Kumbabhisekam and Lakcharchanai. No evidence to show that any, manner of control was exercised over them in respect of such collections. Admittedly, the movable properties of the temple as well as key of the temple are with the plaintiffs. They have been paying kist for the property of the temple. All these aspects have been properly considered and a correct decision has been arrived at by the trial Court. There is no discrepancy or infirmity in the finding arrived at by the trial Court. Hence, the challenge made to the judgment and decree of the Court below by the appellant/defendant cannot be countenanced and the same deserves to be rejected as untenable. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed with costs. 30. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with cost and the judgment and decree dated 22. 1992 made O.S.No.154 of 1986 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Mayiladuthurai is confirmed.