Judgment :- 1. This second appeal is focussed by the plaintiff, animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 19.01.2005 passed by the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in A.S.No.246 of 2004 confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2003 passed by the learned V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.2388 of 1994. 2. The parties, for convenience sake are referred to here under according to their litigative status before the trial Court. 3. Heard both sides. 4. Synoptically and succinctly, pithily and precisely, the germane facts, in a few broad strokes, can be encapsulated thus: a] The second appellant herein happened to be the plaintiff, who filed the suit seeking the following reliefs: - To pass a judgment and decree declaring that -The plaintiff trust M/s. Subbammal Trust also known as Rajammanar Kalyanamandapam in respect of the schedule mentioned property is a private trust; - For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants their agents, servants, officials and other persons from interfering with the plaintiff's administration of the trust and management thereof in any manner and for costs. (extracted as such) on the main ground that the G.O.Ms.No.443, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowment Department dated 15.10.1974 issued by the Deputy Secretary to Government relating to the alleged mismanagement of the plaintiff's trust, was one without jurisdiction because the plaintiff's trust happened to be a private trust over which, neither any Government official nor the government could issue such Notification. b) Written statement was filed by the first defendant-Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment contending that as per Section 108 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, such a suit was not maintainable in the civil court straightaway. The facts relating to the case also were found detailed in the written statement. c] The trial court framed the relevant issues. d] During trial, on the plaintiff's side, its Managing Trustee C.P. Srinivasan examined himself as PW1 and marked Exs.A1 to Ex.A7. On the defendant's side, DW1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. e] Ultimately the suit was dismissed by the trial court as against which, the appeal was filed by the plaintiff for nothing but to be dismissed by the appellate court confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court. On the defendant's side, DW1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. e] Ultimately the suit was dismissed by the trial court as against which, the appeal was filed by the plaintiff for nothing but to be dismissed by the appellate court confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court. f] Challenging and impugning, assailing and questioning the correctness and the legality of the judgments and decrees of both the courts below, the plaintiff has preferred this second appeal on various grounds. 5. The learned counsel for the second appellant/plaintiff placing reliance on the grounds of second appeal would develop his arguments, which could pithily and precisely be set out thus: a) The plaintiff trust is a private trust and the Government officials unnecessarily assumed as though there were mal-administration of the Trust etc. b) The prayer for declaration that the plaintiff trust is a private trust is a civil right and the civil court under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure could very well entertain it. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff would also reiterate the suggested substantial questions of law as found set out in the memorandum of second appeal. 7. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the first respondent/D1 would reiterate the stand of the Government official -R1 in the written statement. According to her, Section 108 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act was a clear bar for filing the suit itself. On balance, she would pray for the dismissal of the second appeal as there is no question of law much less any substantial question of law involved in this matter. 8. My learned predecessor framed the following substantial questions of law. 1. When the burden of proving the mal-administration is with the defendants, is the learned Principal City Civil Judge is correct in dismissing the suit? 2. Is the learned Principal City Civil Judge correct in applying Section 108 of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act when the plaintiff Trust is only a private Charitable Trust and not a religious institution? (extracted as such) 9. Both these substantial questions of law are taken together for discussion as they are inter-linked and inter-woven with each another. 10. 2. Is the learned Principal City Civil Judge correct in applying Section 108 of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act when the plaintiff Trust is only a private Charitable Trust and not a religious institution? (extracted as such) 9. Both these substantial questions of law are taken together for discussion as they are inter-linked and inter-woven with each another. 10. At the outset itself, I would like to fumigate my mind with the following decisions: (i) (2003)-1-MLJ 435 [Inspector/Fit Person, H.R.& C.E., Arulmighu Sundaresa Gnaniar Koil, Dharapuram v. Amirthammal and others]. Certain excerpts from it would run thus: "7. In Nagammal v. Ayyavu Thevar (1973) 1 MLJ 266 , it was held: "The form of relief is not the sole criterion to decide the question of maintainability of the suit. One of the main issues that arises for consideration is whether the plaintiffs and defendants 3 and 4 are hereditary trustees. For deciding that issue, express provision is made in Sec.63 of the Act, and the trial court rightly held that the suit is barred by Sec.108 of the Act." 8. And again in Sri Venkataramanaswamy Deity v. Vadugammal, (1974) I MLJ 431, it was held, "It is beyond dispute that matters which strictly fell within the scope of Sec.57 will have to be taken to the Deputy Commissioner and the procedure prescribed in the Act followed. ....There is ample authority for the proposition that the Civil Court can decide the suit particularly when the substantial relief is one that cannot be granted by the Deputy Commissioner even though questions that arise incidentally may be within the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner under Sec.57 of the Act ..... Thus in special enactments, the jurisdiction of the special Tribunals under the Act is confined only to the purposes of the Acts. A relief which cannot be granted by the Deputy Commissioner can be asked for in a Civil Court". 9. In State of Madras v. Kunnakudi Melamatam alias Annathana Matam, 91966) 2 MLJ 13 (S.C.): AIR 1965 S.C.1570: (1966) 2 An.W.R.13 (S.C.): (1966) 2 S.C.J. 175, the Supreme Court held thus: "Now one of the disputes in this suit is whether the institution is a religious institution within the meaning of Act XIX of 1951. 9. In State of Madras v. Kunnakudi Melamatam alias Annathana Matam, 91966) 2 MLJ 13 (S.C.): AIR 1965 S.C.1570: (1966) 2 An.W.R.13 (S.C.): (1966) 2 S.C.J. 175, the Supreme Court held thus: "Now one of the disputes in this suit is whether the institution is a religious institution within the meaning of Act XIX of 1951. Specific provision is made in Secs.57, 61 and 62 of the Act for determination of that dispute by the Deputy Commissioner, the Commissioner and eventually by a suit instituted in a Court under Sec.62. The present suit is not brought under or in conformity with Sec.62 and consequently, in so far as the suit claims the relief of injunction restraining the levy of contribution and audit fees under Act XIX of 1951, it is barred by Sec.93 of the Act." 10. In Sri Vedagiri Lakshmi Narasimha Swami v. Induru Pattabhirami Reddi, A.I.R.1967 SC 781, the Supreme Court held, "Sec.93 of the Act does not impose a total bar on the maintainability of a suit in a Civil Court. It states that a suit of the nature mentioned therein can be instituted only in conformity with the provisions of the Act; that is to say, a suit or other legal proceeding in respect of matters not covered by the section can be instituted in the ordinary way. It therefore imposes certain statutory restrictions on suits or other legal proceedings relating to matters mentioned therein". 12. In the present case, though there is a reference in the plaint to the suit property being a samadhi' the relief asked is for a declaration that the property is not a public temple. This is a dispute that falls under Sec.63(a) of the H.R.& C.E. Act. It is not an incidental question that is asked to be decided in the suit, but the only question. Therefore, this dispute ought to have been adjudicated by the authority under the Act and as pointed out by the learned Special Government Pleader, the Act also provides for a detailed enquiry. 13. The suit must therefore, be dismissed as not maintainable. Since the question of maintainability is answered in favour of the appellant, we are not dealing with the merits of the case. 13. The suit must therefore, be dismissed as not maintainable. Since the question of maintainability is answered in favour of the appellant, we are not dealing with the merits of the case. It is open to the respondents to approach the authorities for a decision in this regard who shall consider this dispute afresh and decide the same in accordance with law." 2. Following the said decision, this court in S.A.No.746 of 2006 dated 27.01.2011 [The Collector of Vellore District, Vellore-9 vs. V.Nataraja Chettiar (died)] held thus: "11. At this juncture, I would like to extract here under Section 63 of the Act. "63. [Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner ] to decide certain disputes and matters - Subject to the rights of suit or appeal hereinafter provided, [the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be], shall have power to inquire into and decide the following disputes and matters:- a] Whether an institution is a religious institution; b] Whether a trustee holds or held office as a hereditary trustee; c] Whether any property or money is a religious endowment; d] Whether any property or money is a specific endowment; e] Whether any person is entitled, by custom or otherwise, to any honour, emolument or perquisite in any religious institution; and what the established usage of a religious institution is in regard to any other matter; f] Whether any institution or endowment is wholly or partly of a religious or secular character; and whether any property or money has been given wholly or partly for religious or secular uses; and g] Where any property or money has been given for the support of an institution which is partly of a religious and partly of a secular character, or the performance of any service or charity connected with such an institution or the performance of a charity which is partly of a religious and partly of a secular character or where any property or money given is appropriated partly to religious and partly to secular uses, as to what portion of such property or money shall be allocated to religious uses. "12. "12. In my considered opinion, once it is found that the civil court has got no jurisdiction to give any declaration relating to the alleged private status of the temple, then the authority under the Act only could be held to be having the power of granting the said relief to the plaintiff." A mere running of the eye over those precedents would unambiguously and unequivocally, evince and evidence, display and demonstrate that if the trustees of a private trust are really aggrieved by the steps taken by the officials of the HR & CE department questioning the status as a private trust, by treating it as a public trust, then the only remedy open for such alleged trustees is to approach the authority concerned under Section 63 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, which clearly empowers the authority to decide as to whether such a trust is a public trust or a private trust. If the concerned persons are not satisfied with the findings of the authority, it is open for them to prefer appeal before the Commissioner under Section 69 of the Act. Even thereafter, if they are not satisfied with the decision of the appellate authority, it is open for them to file a statutory suit under Section 70 of the Act. 11. When such is the legal position, both the courts below resorting to Section 108 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 which is extracted here under for ready reference: "Bar of suits in respect of administration of management of religious institutions, etc.: 108. No suit or other legal proceeding in respect of the administration or management of a religious institution or any other matter or dispute for determining or deciding which provision is made in this Act shall be instituted in any Court of Law, except under and in conformity with, the provisions of this Act" correctly dismissed the suit, warranting no interference in this second appeal. 12. As such, the aforesaid substantial questions of law are answered to the effect that the plaintiff had no right at all to file the suit straightaway and hence, Section 108 of the Act was a bar for filing such a suit. 13. In view of the above findings, this second appeal is dismissed. However there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 14. 13. In view of the above findings, this second appeal is dismissed. However there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 14. In view of the second appeal itself having been dismissed as not maintainable, the impleading petition filed in C.M.P.No.504 of 2012 is also dismissed. 15. On the pronouncement of this judgment by this court, the learned counsel for the appellant would make an extempore submission that the plaintiff might be given liberty to approach the authority concerned as it has been highlighted supra. 16. In view of the above submission, the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to petition the authority concerned under Section 63 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act and get suitable remedy as per law.