JUDGMENT : This appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.151 of 1991, aggrieved by the Judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur, dated 05.12.1995, dismissing the said suit in O.S.No.151 of 1991. 2. O.S.No.151 of 1991 had been filed under section 70(1) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, seeking to cancel the order of the Commissioner, HR & CE, Chennai, who was first defendant and the Deputy Commissioner, HR & CE, Chennai, who was the second defendant in A.P.No.59 of 1990 and O.A.No.51 of 1988 respectively, and to held that the temple is only sectional in character and for further relief restraining the first and second defendants from interfering with the management of the suit temple and frame a scheme safeguarding the rights of the three communities on the basis of the memo of consent dated 12.03.1991. 3. The suit had been filed by five plaintiffs for themselves and as representatives of Thevars, Senaithalaivars and Yadavas (of Tamil and Telugu Origin) in Seithur, Mettupatty Village. It must been mentioned that pending appeal, the first and third appellants, who were the first and third plaintiffs died and the appeal has been continued by the second, fourth and fifth appellants. It must also be mentioned that in the suit the 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants were independent persons. 4. The suit had been filed with respect to the Arulmigu Mariamman Temple at Seithur, Mettupatty Village. It was claimed that it was an ancient temple and under the exclusive management of representatives of Thevars, Senaithalaivars and Yadavas of Seithur, Mettupatty Village. It had been stated that they are the Kovil kudigal. The plaintiffs are the representatives of the three communities. The deity is worshipped as kulatheivam. They donate contribution for the renovation and development of the temple. The Zamindar of Seithur was the President, till he was alive. His nominees and assistants were also included in the management committee. However, the fit person was appointed to the temple by the Assistant Commissioner, HR & CE, Ramanathapuram at Madurai. The executive office of Arulmigu Nachadai Thavirthu Arulia samy temple was appointed Devadanam as a fit person for the post of Executive Officer. This was objected by the plaintiffs. They filed O.A.No.51 of 1988 before the second defendant, who is the Deputy Commissioner HR & CE, Chennai. He rejected the said application. The executive office of Arulmigu Nachadai Thavirthu Arulia samy temple was appointed Devadanam as a fit person for the post of Executive Officer. This was objected by the plaintiffs. They filed O.A.No.51 of 1988 before the second defendant, who is the Deputy Commissioner HR & CE, Chennai. He rejected the said application. Thereafter, they filed an appeal in A.P.No.59 of 1990 before the first defendant, who is the Commissioner, HR & CE, Chennai. The appeal was also dismissed. The plaintiffs claimed that they were not given sufficient opportunity. Consequently, to uphold the rights of the three communities namely, Thevars, Senaithalaivars and Yadavas with respect to the management of the suit temple, the suit had been filed under section 70(1) of HR & CE Act, 1959. 5. In the written statement filed by the first and second defendants, it was stated that the plaintiffs had no locus standi to institute the suit. It was denied that only the three communities namely, Thevars, Senaithalaivars and Yadavas managed the temple. It was also denied that these three communities constituted a single unit and worship the deity as Kulatheivam. It had been stated that the three communities did not form a religious denomination. It had been stated that the executive officer, Devadanam was appointed as a fit person. It had been stated that settlement of a scheme for administration of the temple was not necessary. The first and second defendants stated that the suit should be dismissed. 6. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the learned Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the suit temple is a sectional temple belonging to the three communities of Seithur Mettupatty Village, namely, Thevars, Senaithalaivars and Yadavas (both of Telughu and Tamil Origin)? 2. Whether the court has jurisdiction to try this suit? 3. Whether the orders passed in O.A.No.51 of 1988 and A.P.No.59 of 1990, the second and first defendants are liable to be cancelled? 4. Where the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief as prayed for?” 7. The parties went to trial. During trial, on the side of the plaintiffs, three witnesses were examined. The fourth plaintiff A. Veeraputhiran was examined as PW1 and two independent witnesses namely, Palaiya and Nachadalingam were examined PW2 and PW3. 4. Where the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief as prayed for?” 7. The parties went to trial. During trial, on the side of the plaintiffs, three witnesses were examined. The fourth plaintiff A. Veeraputhiran was examined as PW1 and two independent witnesses namely, Palaiya and Nachadalingam were examined PW2 and PW3. On the side of the defendants, Krishnabavani, who was the Inspector of HR & CE department at Virudhunagar was examined as DW1 and another Inspector, HR & CE Department at Srivilliputhur, by name, Jeyagandhi was examined DW2. The plaintiffs marked Exs.A1 to A18 and the defendants marked Ex.B1. Among the documents marked by the plaintiffs, the copy of the order of the Deputy Commissioner HR & CE, Madurai in O.A.No.44 of 1986 and the copy of annexure order both dated 06.07.1987 were marked Exs.A3 and A4, the settlement deed executed by Seithur Sevuga Pandian Thevar in favour of Mettupatty Mariamman temple, dated 15.04.1957 was marked as Ex.A5, the patta pass book issued in the name of Mettupatty Mariamman temple was marked as Ex.A7, the minutes book maintained by the Mettupatti Mariamman temple was marked as A9, the copy of Audit report of the temple, dated 30.09.1982 was marked as A10, the letter and report of Assistant Audit Officer in respect of the suit temple, dated 29.01.1988, was marked as A11, the order of the first defendant and it is annexure in A.P.No.59 of 1990, dated 08.04.1991 were marked as Ex.A14 and Ex.A15, the copy of the notice issued by the plaintiffs to the first defendant and the acknowledgement card were marked as Exs.A16, A17 and A18. On the side of the defendant, the report of the inspection HR & CE Department, Srivilliputhur in O.A.No.51 of 1998, dated 18.09.1989 was marked as EX.B1. 8. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur found that though the witnesses stated that the temple is more than 300 years old, there were no documents to show that it was actually 300 years old. There were also no documents to show that members of the three communities namely, Thevars, Senai Talaivars and Yadavas were managing the temple for a long time. There were also no documents to show that members of the three communities namely, Thevars, Senai Talaivars and Yadavas were managing the temple for a long time. At the same time, the learned Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur also found that it was the evidence of DW1, Krishnabhavani, the Inspector of HR & CE Department at Srivilliputhur at Virudhunagar, that the temple was constructed by former Zamindar of Seithur Sevuga Pandian Thevar. The learned Subordinate Judge further held that according to Ex.B1, which was prepared by DW2, who was also the Inspector of HR & CE at Srivilliputhur, Jeyagandhi, other communities also participated in the administration of the temple. The learned Judge further found that according to Ex.A13, which is a Photograph inscription found in the suit temple, apart from the names of the three Community people, there was also the name of R. Ramasamy Naidu and consequently, the learned Judge held that the management was not exclusively within the purview of the said three communities. Finally, the learned Judge held that though the suit is maintainable, there were no reasons to cancel the orders of the first and second defendants and dismissed the suit with cost. The Plaintiffs are in appeal against the said Judgment. 9. During the pendency of this appeal, the first and third appellants died. However, since the issue related to management of the Arulmigu Mariamman temple at Seithur Mettupatty Village, legal representatives were not brought on record and the learned counsel for the appellants filed a memo, which was recorded by this Court, on 01.10.2012, that the appeal can be prosecuted by the second and fourth and fifth appellants. 10. It is the case of learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. M.S. Balasubramania Iyer, that the temple had been constructed by the former Zamindar Seithur Sevuga Pandian Thevar more than 300 years old. The deity of the temple namely, Arulmigu Mariamman had been worshipped as Kulatheivam by the three community people, who were the residents of Seithur, Mettupatty Village. They were Kovil kudigal. It had been pointed out that the three communities namely, Thevars, Senaithalaivars and Yadavas (of Tamil and Telugu origin) had been in management and administration of the temple and consequently, the temple became a sectional temple. The learned counsel further stated that management is different ownership of the temple. The three communities claimed right to administer and manage the temple. It had been pointed out that the three communities namely, Thevars, Senaithalaivars and Yadavas (of Tamil and Telugu origin) had been in management and administration of the temple and consequently, the temple became a sectional temple. The learned counsel further stated that management is different ownership of the temple. The three communities claimed right to administer and manage the temple. They did not claim ownership rights of its properties. 11. On the other hand Mr. R. Velmurugan, learned Government Advocate for the first and second respondents namely, the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of the HR & CE Board stated that according to Ex.B1, report prepared by DW2, other community people also participated in the temple functions. The learned Government Advocate stressed on Ex.A13 in which the name Ramasamy Naidu is found and therefore contended that exclusivity of the three communities cannot be presumed. 12. I have carefully considered the rival arguments advanced by both Mr. M.S. Balasubramania Iyer, the learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. R. Velmurugan, Government Advocate for first and second respondents. 13. The Suit temple namely, Arulmigu Mariamman temple is situated in Seithur Mettupatty Village. This was under the zamin of Seithur. Ex.A5, dated 15.04.1957 is a Settlement Deed executed by Sevuga Pandiyan Thevar in favour of the Mettupatti Mariamman Temple. In the Settlement Deed , the Zamindar had settled two acres of land in 1957 to the said temple. By Ex.A6 which is a sale deed executed by M.K. Sundaram Chettiar in favour of V. Kandasamy Thevar and others, dated 10.06.1983, it had been stated that for the benefit of Sri Arulmigu Mariamman temple at Mettupatty, in which it had been acknowledged that the administration of the temple was with the mentioned three communities of Thevars, Senaithalaivars and Yadavas, a Well along with pump set was sold to the temple. This document is one among other documents to show that the temple was in the management and administration of the mentioned three communities. 14. Ex.A9 is the Minutes Book maintained by the Mettupatty Arulmigu Mariamman temple and PW1 had also given evidence that it is only three communities, who are elected representatives to administer the temple once in a year, in three years. It is mentioned in Ex.A9. The three communities are Kovil kudigal. 14. Ex.A9 is the Minutes Book maintained by the Mettupatty Arulmigu Mariamman temple and PW1 had also given evidence that it is only three communities, who are elected representatives to administer the temple once in a year, in three years. It is mentioned in Ex.A9. The three communities are Kovil kudigal. It is also found in the evidence PW1 that the Poo Kuzhi festival in the month of Panguni is famous in the said temple. During the first day of the temple festival, only people belonging to these three communities used to worship. The festival would be held for ten days. These three communities used to conduct the festival for one day, respectively in turns. The evidence of PW2 also supported the evidence of PW1. PW3 stated that the temple was 300 years old. It was also been stated by DW1 that the temple was constructed by the former Zamindar Seithur Sevuga Pandian Thevar. 15. It is an accepted fact that the members of all communities worshipped in the temple. However, the appellants claim right to manage and administer the temple. This has been negativated by the learned Subordinate Judge in view of Ex.A13. Ex.A13 is the photograph of an inscription found in the suit temple. It is of the year 1974. The learned Judge heavily relied on Ex.A13 to disprove the case of the appellants that it was only the three communities, who were in management of the said temple. Ex.A13 has been extracted in full:- “XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX” In the above inscription, the name of Ramasamy Naidu is found. Since 'Naidu' is not one of the three mentioned communities and since this was also been mentioned in Ex.B1, which was the report given by DW2, the learned Judge held that on this sole ground it must be concluded that the management was not in the exclusive control of the mentioned communities. The learned Judge in his Judgment also held that to substantiate the same in Ex.B1, DW2 had also extracted statements of members of the general public. 16. However, any Court can give a finding only on the basis of the evidence let in before the said Court. The evidence has to be recorded by the Court and the evidentiary value of such evidence after cross-examination alone can be taken for consideration in any judicial decision. 16. However, any Court can give a finding only on the basis of the evidence let in before the said Court. The evidence has to be recorded by the Court and the evidentiary value of such evidence after cross-examination alone can be taken for consideration in any judicial decision. Statements recorded in proceedings outside the Court and included in documents produced before the Court can not be taken on its face value. Even though DW2 submitted Ex.B1 containing statement of various other people, those persons were not examined before the trial Court. Consequently, I hold that Ex.B1 cannot be taken as an admissible piece of evidence. 17. It is the case of the appellants and also their consistent case before the trial Court that Ramasamy Naidu was the accountant of the Zamindar and consequently in that capacity, his name was found in Ex.A.13. One solitary inscription of the year 1974, when the temple is nearly 300 years old, containing the name of a member of another community cannot be taken as the sole ground to oust the three communities from management which seek right to manage. 18. In this connection, it has to be examined as to what exactly is a 'denomination'. “Denomination: 1. A class or collection of individuals called by the same name; a sect; in relation to a variety or its propagating material or essentially derived variety of its propagating material, means the denomination of such variety or its propagating material or essentially derived variety or its propagating material, as the case may be, expressed by means of letters or a combination of letters and figures written in any language. 2. The word 'denomination' has been defined in the Oxford dictionary to mean allocation of individuals classed together under the same name; a religious sect or body having a common faith and organization and designed by a distinctive name. As Art 26. Constitution of India contemplates not merely a religious denomination but also a section thereof, the math or the spiritual fraternity represented by it can legitimately come within the purview of this Article. 3. The word ‘denomination’ has been defined in the Oxford Dictionary to mean ‘a collection of individuals classed together under the same name: a religious sect or body having a common faith and organization and designated by a distinctive name’ 4. 3. The word ‘denomination’ has been defined in the Oxford Dictionary to mean ‘a collection of individuals classed together under the same name: a religious sect or body having a common faith and organization and designated by a distinctive name’ 4. The Webster's Third New International Dictionary gives the meaning of ‘denomination’ ‘a religious group of a community of believers called by the same name’” 19. In S.N.T. Kumaraswami Chettiar vs. The Board of Commissioners for the HR&CE, Madras, reported in 46 LW 528, it has been held as follows:- “......if new members of that community should come and settle in the village they might well claim that as part of the villag community they have got the right to take part in the management of the temple” 20. In The Commissioner of HR&CE, Madras vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Sirur Mutt, reported in 67 LW 1220, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, it has been held as follows:- “... This religious denomination has a fundamental right under Art. 26 to manage its own affairs in matters of religion through the Matadhipati who is their spiritual head and superior, and those provisions of the Act, which substantially take away the rights of the Matadhipati in this respect, amount to violation of the fundamental right guaranteed under Art. 26”. “...As Regards Art.26, the first question is, what is the precise meaning or connotation of the expression ‘religious denomination’ and whether a math could come within this expression. The word ‘denomination’ has been defined in the Oxford Dictionary to mean ‘a collection of individuals classed together under the same name: a religious sect or body having a common faith and organization and designated by a distinctive name’. 21. In Tamarakulam Vellala Samudhayam, Arya Kulasekhara Nangai Amman Temple Trustee, Subramania Pillai Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu represented by District Collector, Nagercoil and another, the Principal Bench of this Court has held at page no.361 at paragraph No.29 as follows:- “Thus the law on the point is well settled that even a particular caste can maintain an institution and seek protection as a denominational institution. The fact that the public have access to it, will not be material. The fact that the public have access to it, will not be material. So long as it is clear that the denomination is really in charge of the temple and its affairs, it would be a denominational institution, though the public are not excluded from it.” 22. In Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple, Varanasi and Others vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (1997) 4 SCC 606 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held at page no.626 as follows:- “...The words religious denomination under Article 26 of the Constitution must take their colour from the word religion and if this be so the expression religious denomination must also specify three conditions, namely, it must be (1) a collection of religious faith, a system of belief which is conducive to the spiritual well-being, i.e., a common faity; (2) common organisation; (3) a designation by a distinctive name” 23. In The Commissioner for the HR&CE, Administration Department, Nungambakkam, Madras-34, vs. V. Perumal Muthaliar and six others, reported in 2001 (3) LW 669 , at paragraph No.13, it has been held as follows:- “13. The learned Special Government Pleader contended that the people at large can worship in the suit temples as a matter of right and hence it could not be said that they were denominational ones. It is, now settled law that the mere fact that the general public were freely admitted to the temples could not mean that there should be a ready inference that the temples were public ones, and that there was no dedication to the public. It would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. As pointed out by the Courts below, the appellant had not been able to establish that the persons belonging to other communities were worshipping in the suit temples as a matter of right”. 24. In The Commissioner for the HR & CE, Madras and another vs. Swamikeela Arasalwar Dharmam Veera Kerala Vermapuram Gramam (Street) Shencottah, through its Trustees D.V. Subramania Iyer and others reported in 96 LW 548, it has been held as follows:- “The mere fact that public is being allowed to participate in the festivals connected with the temple or even allowed to worship in the temples could not persuade the court to readily infer therefrom dedication to the public. The crucial test is that the Hindu public or any section thereof must be entitled to use the place as a place of public religious worship, and they must be doing it as of right and not as gratis from the persons in management”. 25. In Aralvaimozhi Sri Nainar Kulasekara Vinayagar Vellala Samudaya Temple, Vadakoor, Aaralvoimozhi represented by its Trustees and others vs. Palavesam Pillai and others reported in (2003)3 M.L.J. 1 , it has been held at paragraph No.9 as follows:- “In most of the Villages in Tamil Nadu, these Vellala community people reside in group in a particular street in which street, no other community people would reside. In order to have worship of their own Deities temples were constructed, maintained and administered by this community people and the origin of the construction of these temples are not traceable in most of the villages. But however the fact remains that for several centuries before, these temples were constructed in the streets where the Vellala community people reside and they have been managing and administering the affairs of the said temples. From the evidence of both sides, it is made out that except the Vellala community people, no other community people claim that they were also in the administration of these temples.” 26. In Kuppusamy vs. 1. The Commissioner, HR & CER, Administration Department, Chennai-600 034, 2. The Deputy Commissioner, HR & CER, Administration Department, Chennai-600 034, reported in 2011 (1) LW 351 , at paragraph Nos.29 and 30 has held as follows:- “29. It is not in dispute that generally the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove the case. But, in the case of dispute with regard to the status of the temple, whether it is a public temple or a provate temple, the burden is on the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department to prove that the temple is a public temple”. “30. As laid down in the above referred judgments it is clear that the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department ought to have exained the public in order to prove that the temple is the public temple”. 27. Analysis of the above binding precedents show that in the present case, Arulmigu Mariamman Temple in Seithur Mettupatti Village is a village temple. The management of the Seithur Temple had been restricted to the three communities namely, Thevars, Senaithalaivars, Yadavas. 27. Analysis of the above binding precedents show that in the present case, Arulmigu Mariamman Temple in Seithur Mettupatti Village is a village temple. The management of the Seithur Temple had been restricted to the three communities namely, Thevars, Senaithalaivars, Yadavas. Eventhough, in Ex.A.13, the name of Ramasamy Naidu is found, it is a solitary instance and the explanation by the appellants that he was the accountant of the Zamindar, on porbabilities, has to be accepted. On the other hand, the respondents have not produced any evidence from among the local people to show that other community people have been in the management of Arulmigu Seithur Mariamman Temple. Infact, even in the written statement of the respondents, the fact that other community people have been in management has not been mentioned. Ex.B1 cannot be taken on its face value, since the persons mentioned, who had given statements in Ex.B1 have not been examined in Court and consequently, their statements have no evidentiary value. As a matter of fact, other community people belonging to Naidu community have not come forward during the litigation to claim a right to administer the temple. This issue has been projected only by HR&CE Department and I reject the said contention. 28. Consequently, I hold that the said Mariamman Temple is a village temple and eventhough, the general public have a right to worship in the temple and it is a public temple, the right to manage the temple is restricted to the members of the three community people, namely, Thevars, Senaithalaivars and Yadavas (of Tamil and Telugu origin) in Seithur, Mettupatty Village. This does not mean that other community people have no right to worship. In every Hindu temple, a right to worship is granted to not just every Hindu, but to every human being. However, the right to manage or administer the temple exclusively by the three named communities, namely, Thevars, Senaithalaivars and Yadavas (of Tamil and Telugu origin) in Seithur, Mettupatty Village, is upheld by this Court. 29. With the above observation, the judgment and decree of the learned Sub Judge, Srivilliputhur made in O.S. No. 151 of 1991 is set aside and the suit is decreed as prayed for. The appeal is allowed and in the said circumstances of the case, since it relates to the issue with respect to the administration of a religious temple, without costs.