JUDGMENT : The 1st and 2nd defendants in OS.No.272 of 2001 have filed this appeal under Section 70(2) of the Hind Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 22 of 1959, aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 6.9.2002 of the Subordinate Judge, Paramakudi. 2. The above suit had been filed by the respondent herein under Section 70(2) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 22 of 1959, seeking declaration that the suit temple is a private one within the meaning of Section 63(a) of the TN HR&CE Act, 1959 and to set aside the order dated 23.3.2001 made in AP.No.19 of 1997 of the 1st defendant, confirming the order of the 2nd respondent dated 17.5.1997 made in OA.No.7 of 1994 and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit property. 3. The suit temple is Sri Kamatchiamman-Karupannasamy Temple at Sayalkudi, Ramanathapuram District. The said suit was decreed as prayed for by the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2002. Challenging the said judgment, the defendants in the said suit, namely, The Commissioner, HR & CE Department and the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Sivagangai have filed this appeal. 4. In the plaint, it had been stated that Sri Kamatchiamman-Karupanasamy Temple at Sayalkudi Village, Ramanthapuram District was an anscestral temple and belonged to the forefathers of the plaintiff. It had been stated that in 1935, the said temple was constructed by the great grand father of the plaintiff Muthuvijayan in the patta lands out of his own private income and it is stated that there is a culvert relating to the same. It is stated that general public are not allowed to worship in the temple and the idols in the temple have been made by sand by hand. There are no special Poojas performed. As and when time permits, poojas were being performed. After the death of Muthuvijayan, the father of the plaintiff Madasamy Konar managed the said temple. It had been stated that except for the family members of the plaintiff, no other persons worshipped in the temple or managed the temple. There was a partition deed in 1906 and also a patta given in 1938 by the Ramanathapuram Samasthanam, which are relating to the suit temple. 5. It had been stated that except for the family members of the plaintiff, no other persons worshipped in the temple or managed the temple. There was a partition deed in 1906 and also a patta given in 1938 by the Ramanathapuram Samasthanam, which are relating to the suit temple. 5. The plaintiff had filed OA.No.7/94 before the 2nd appellant, who is the Joint Commissioner, HR&CE, Sivagangai, which was dismissed on 17.05.1997. The appeal in AP.No.19/97 filed as against the same was also dismissed by the 1st appellant, the Commissioner, HR&CE, Chennai, on 23.03.2001. Challenging the said orders and claiming that the suit temple is the private temple, the above suit had been filed. 6. The second defendant had filed a written statement, which was adopted by the 1st defendant. It had been stated that the suit temple is situated opposite to Sayalkudi bus stand in Survey No.185/4, in land measuring 48 cents. It had been stated that the Assistant Commissioner had dismissed the O.A.No.7/94 after full enquiry. Similarly A.P.No.19/97 also was dismissed after full enquiry. It had been stated that the plaintiff filed WP.No.330/97 before the Madras High Court and in the said WP, orders were passed. It had been stated that the general public worshipped in the temple. It had been stated that the plaintiff had paid donation for two years. It had been further stated that in the suit temple, idols of Kamatchi, Karupannasamy, Erulayi, Erulandi, Madasmy, Uthami, Muniyasamy, Pechi, Periyakaruppan, Chinnakaruppan, Sonaiya, Kasi, Madasamy, in all totally 21 idols are present. There is a Poosari and another Pavalar, who are working in the temple. It had been further stated that in 1990 community people of Yadhavar, Pillaimar, Arunthathiyar, Sakkiliyar, Adhidravidar had formed a Committee to run the temple and it was also registered under No.25/1990. The various community people numbering 13 are in management of the temple. The general public give donation. It had been stated that since the general public are not only offering donation but also are in the management of the temple, the defendants had passed orders that the suit temple is a public religious institution. The defendants claimed that the suit should be dismissed. 7. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court had framed the following issues:- 1. Where the temple is the hereditary temple of the plaintiff, started by Muthuvijayan? 2. Whether the suit temple is a public religious institution? The defendants claimed that the suit should be dismissed. 7. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court had framed the following issues:- 1. Where the temple is the hereditary temple of the plaintiff, started by Muthuvijayan? 2. Whether the suit temple is a public religious institution? 3. Whether the orders passed by the defendants should be set aside? 4. Whether the plaintiff is possession and management of the suit temple? 5. Where the suit is maintainable? 6. Whether the suit claim is bad in view of the registered Sangam as stated in the written statement? 7. To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled? 8. The parties went to trial. During the trial, the plaintiff examined three witnesses as PW.1 to PW.3. The plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and two other independent witnesses, by name, Sethuramlingam and Ramar as PW.2 and PW.3. The plaintiff had also marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A12. These included the patta of the Ramanathapuram Samasthanam of the year 1938 as Ex.A2, the order in O.A.No.7/94 as Ex.A4, the order in A.P.No.19/97 as Ex.A7, the order of the Revenue Tahsildar, Kadaladi as Ex.A9. On the side of the defendants, two witnesses Ramaraj and Ramu were examined as DW.1 and DW.2. The defendants had marked Ex.B1, which is the Register of the Society and Ex.B2 which is copy of the resolution book of Sabha. The report and sketch of the Advocate Commissioner were marked as Ex.C1 and Ex.C2. 9. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Subordinate Judge, Paramadudi decreed the suit as prayed for without costs. As against the same, the defendants have filed this appeal. 10. The learned Government Advocate for the appellants pointed out that the Joint Commissioner had dismissed O.A.No.7/94 filed under Section 63(A) of the HR & CE Act 22 of 1959 on merits, after granting full opportunity, by order dated 17.05.1997. This fact has been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent, who has stated that no opportunity was granted before giving the findings in O.A.No.7/94. Even though the said fact may not have a direct bearing on this Appeal, still, this Court had examined Ex.A4 which is the order dated 17.05.1997 made in O.A.No7/94 passed by the Joint Commissioner HR & CE Department, Sivagangai. Even though the said fact may not have a direct bearing on this Appeal, still, this Court had examined Ex.A4 which is the order dated 17.05.1997 made in O.A.No7/94 passed by the Joint Commissioner HR & CE Department, Sivagangai. In the said order, in which the facts relating to the appeal had been discussed, it had been determined after giving full opportunity to both sides and after hearing both sides arguments advanced, the Joint Commissioner had found that the respondent herein, who was the petitioner therein, was an instrumental in forming a society called 11. It was further found that the respondent herein was also instrumental in registering society, under Rregistration No.25/90. The members of the society were xxxx Consequently, the Joint Commissioner found that the respondent had himself extended the management of the Temple and the Sabhai. He further found that the respondent was associated with the said Sabhai till the construction of the shopping complex was completed. Thereafter, he claimed exclusive ownership to the shopping complex. Consequently, the Joint Commissioner held against the respondent herein. This naturally means that the contention of the respondent that the order in Ex.A4 in O.A.No.7/1994 was passed with affording opportunity is not correct. 12. As against the said order in OA.No.7/1994, an appeal had been filed in AP.No.19 of 1997 and the said appeal was filed under Section 69 of the said Act. This appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner, HR & CE Department, by order dated 23.03.2001. This appeal had been marked as Ex.A7. The Commissioner had once again recompressed the facts and also found that it is a fact that the respondent herein involved himself with the management till construction of shopping complex was completed and thereafter claimed exclusive ownership. It has also been found that Sabhai was found for various communities as found out by the Joint Commissioner and consequently, the Commissioner also dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent. 13. In the judgment and decree, which is the subject matter of the this appeal, the appellant herein produced Ex.B1 and Ex.B2. EX.B1 is the Registration Certificate of the Sabha, by name, xxxx with Registration No.25/1990. In the said certificate, it had been stated that it had been registered with 13 different individuals of different communities. 14. The learned Government Advocate placed special emphasis on Ex.B1 and Ex.B2. EX.B1 is the Registration Certificate of the Sabha, by name, xxxx with Registration No.25/1990. In the said certificate, it had been stated that it had been registered with 13 different individuals of different communities. 14. The learned Government Advocate placed special emphasis on Ex.B1 and Ex.B2. Ex.P2 is the minutes of the meeting held on 10.02.1992 of the said Sabhai. In the said meeting, the respondent had participated and even though it had been described as proceedings, it was a composite gathering and a composite community in the management of the temple. In the trial court, the Trial Judge had relied on Ex.A9 and Ex.A10. Ex.A9 is the proceedings of the Tahsildar, Kadaladi dated 10.06.1996, which is the proceedings with respect to encroachers in the land, which is said to be belonged to the temple. Even in the said proceedings, the encroachers, by name Murugesan and his wife Lakshmiammal had claimed that they were in possession for ten years. They also produced the Ration Card issued for the year 1988-1992, a copy of 'B-Memo Receipt Nos.317250, 027359 dated 25.01.1995 and also informed that appeals was pending before the Madras High Court in Nos.1910 and 1912/94. However, the Tahsildar stated that the said Murugesan did not produce any documents. A reading of the proceedings of the Tahsildar shows that it actually supports the case of the appellants herein. There had been challenge to the title of the respondent. In Ex.A10, which is a notice dated 21.11.1996 again issued by the Tahsildar to the Revenue Inspector, Sayalkudi, it had been stated that the Revenue Officer should take steps to dispossess Murugesan and his wife Lakshmiammal from the suit property. These facts as stated above show that there had been challenges to the exclusive right and title claimed by the respondent. The reasons given by the Trial Judge regarding Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 are superfluous. Ex.B1 reveals that the management of the temple had been registered for various communities, which included Yadavar, Devar, Pillaimar, Navithar, Sakiliyar, Kudumbar and Adhidravidar communities. This naturally destroys the case of the respondent that the suit temple was exclusively managed by him and his ancestors by Yadava community. Ex.B1 reveals that the management of the temple had been registered for various communities, which included Yadavar, Devar, Pillaimar, Navithar, Sakiliyar, Kudumbar and Adhidravidar communities. This naturally destroys the case of the respondent that the suit temple was exclusively managed by him and his ancestors by Yadava community. It is also seen under Ex.A5 that even though the Commissioner had informed that the order of the Joint Commissioner was to appoint one A. Balasuburaja as a fit person of Arulmigu Kamatchiamman-Karuppannasamy Temple, he had actually remanded the matter and directed the Joint Commissioner to give opportunity to the respondent herein to put forth his case. Consequently this document also will not help to the respondent. 15. A perusal of Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 reveals that the management of the Temple by the respondent has been ousted by the formation and registration of the Sabhai. Consequently, the suit Temple has to be declared as a public Temple. It is also to be mentioned that Ex.A2 Patta, which had been issued by the Ramanathapuram Samasthanam only for the purposes of agricultural alone and with a further direction to pay taxes to the Ramanathapuram Samasthanam. The learned counsel for the respondent stated that the name of the agriculturists of the temple are not found in the records of the Arulmigu Kamatchiamman-Karuppannasamy Temple. However, the fact that public were permitted to worship without any restriction and that all community people are in joint management itself reveals that the Arulmigu Kamatchiamman-Karuppannasamy Temple, at Sayalkudi is a place of public worship. I am not inclined to change that characteristic of the temple. Consequently, the judgment and decree of the trial court has to be interfered with. 16. In the result, this appeal suit is allowed. No costs. The Judgment and Decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Paramakudi made in O.S.No.272 of 2001, dated 06.09.2002 is set aside.