JUDGMENT : R. Pongiappan, J. 1. Aggrieved over the concurrent findings made in O.S. No. 757 of 1992 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli and in A.S. No. 64 of 1997 on the file of the Second Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli, the appellants/defendants filed this second appeal. 2. Before the trial Court, the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit and seeking the relief of declaration declaring that the suit temple is the denominational temple belongs to the Thevar Community. Further, for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the appellants/defendants in interfering with the enjoyment, worship of the suit schedule property and for costs. By judgment and decree dated 21.02.1997, the learned Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli, allowed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs and granted the decree in favour of them. Aggrieved over the said findings, the appellants/defendants preferred an appeal before the learned Second Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli. By judgment and decree dated 25.10.1999, the learned Second Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli, after confirming the findings arrived at by the trial Court dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved over the same, the appellants/defendants have filed the present second appeal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as, as described by the trial Court. 4. The averments made in the plaint, in brief, are as follows:- The suit has been filed by the plaintiffs 1 and 2 for themselves and on behalf of the Thevar community people residing in Vilagam village, Tirunelveli Taluk. In the said village, the plaintiffs are residing, there was a temple in the name of Karuppaswamy temple. The said temple was constructed by the Thevar community people in the year of 1925. Only the people of Thevar Community constructed the said temple by putting their money in the said temple. Yearly once the said community people celebrated Sivarathiri and Thirukarthikai functions. Apart from that, Kodaivizha has also been celebrated once in two or three years. For the celebration of festivals, the said community people alone spend the money. The said temple is a denominational temple. Except the people belong to the Thevar Community, the other community people did not worship in the said temple. There is no permanent priest to the temple. The first plaintiff maintained the said temple for the past 15 years. For the celebration of festivals, the said community people alone spend the money. The said temple is a denominational temple. Except the people belong to the Thevar Community, the other community people did not worship in the said temple. There is no permanent priest to the temple. The first plaintiff maintained the said temple for the past 15 years. On 14.01.1969, one Manakkavala Perumal Thevar, Karupaswamy Thevar, Esakki Thevar and Muthu Thevar donated 11 cents of land vide sale deed dated 14.01.1961 to the said temple. Similarly, on 09.08.1973, some other people belong to the Thevar community donated four cents of land for the benefit of temple. The defendants are not having any right in interfering with the temple administration. For the letter sent by the second and third defendants, the first plaintiff repeatedly sent a reply notice. Vide letter dated 02.07.1992, the Assistant Commissioner, HR & CE Department directed the plaintiffs to get the Court order that the temple belongs to the Thevar community. Hence the suit. 5. The averments made in the written statement filed by the second defendant and adopted by the defendants 1 and 3, in brief, are as follows:- It is not correct to say that the temple under dispute is constructed by the Thevar Community people. In fact, the temple was administrated by the people belong to the various community. Further the temple was constructed in S.F. No. 35/A1 which belongs to the Government. There was no compound wall to the temple. The temple under dispute is not a denomination temple. It is not correct to say that the people of the Thevar community purchased the land and donated the same to the temple. There is no substantial evidence to prove the same. From the year 1976 onwards, the temple is under the control of the first defendant. The suit has been filed after the lapse of 16 years from the date on which the defendants are entering into the administration of the temple. Further, the plaintiffs admitted that the income received from the landed property alone is spent for administration of the temple. Instead of filing of the petition before the Assistant Commissioner, HR&CE Department, Tirunelveli, the plaintiffs filed a suit directly before the Civil Court. If the temple is worshipped by the people belong to the various community, it amounts that the temple is under the control of HR&CE Department. Instead of filing of the petition before the Assistant Commissioner, HR&CE Department, Tirunelveli, the plaintiffs filed a suit directly before the Civil Court. If the temple is worshipped by the people belong to the various community, it amounts that the temple is under the control of HR&CE Department. As per Article 26 of constitution of India, we cannot said that the temple is the denominational temple. Only after exhausting all the remedy before the officer concerned, the plaintiffs have to file a suit before the civil forum. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is liable for dismissal. 6. Based on the above said pleadings, the learned Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli, had framed necessary issues and tried the suit. 7. Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiffs, six witnesses have been examined as P.W. 1 to P.W. 6 and eight documents were marked as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.8. On the side of the defendants, no one has been examined as witnesses and no documents were marked. 8. Having considered all the materials placed before him, the learned Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli, came to the conclusion that the temple under dispute, is the denominational temple. Further held that the Civil Court is having jurisdiction to try the suit filed by the plaintiffs. Ultimately, he allowed the suit and granted the relief of declaration and injunction as prayed for and the same was confirmed in the appeal filed by the defendants. Feeling aggrieved over the same, the appellants/defendants filed this present Second Appeal. 9. At the time of admitting the Second Appeal, this Court has formulated the following Substantial Questions of Law, for consideration:- (i) Whether the suit instituted by the plaintiffs is maintainable? (ii) Is not the suit barred under Section 108 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959? (iii) Whether the plaintiffs claiming to be the representatives of Vailagam Village, Thevar Community could claim minority status in terms of Article 26 of the Constitution? (iv) Whether the Thevar Community could claim itself to be a minority community either religious or denominational? (v) Whether the Thevar Community of Vailagam Village could claim the status of minority and claim themselves to be a religious denomination? Substantial questions of law No. 4 and 5:- 10. (iv) Whether the Thevar Community could claim itself to be a minority community either religious or denominational? (v) Whether the Thevar Community of Vailagam Village could claim the status of minority and claim themselves to be a religious denomination? Substantial questions of law No. 4 and 5:- 10. In respect to the question as whether the temple under reference is a denominational temple or religious one, the Courts below held that the evidence let in on the side of the plaintiffs and documents exhibited on the side of the plaintiffs will prove the fact that the temple is worshipped by the Thevar community people alone. Only because of the said reason, the Courts below have concluded that the temple pertaining to the suit, is a denominational temple. In this regard, before the trial Court in order to establish the manner of worship and the manner of celebrating the festival, P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 have stated clear evidence in support of their case. 11. The said evidences given by P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 are not disputed by the defendants in respect to the manner of worship and about the celebration of festivals. Before the trial Court, the sale deeds dated 09.08.1973 and 14.01.1969 were marked as Ex. A.4 and Ex. A.6. The recitals found in those documents will prove the fact that the Thevar community people alone purchased the lands measuring an extent of 11 cents and 4 cents and handed over the same to the Karuppasamy temple. Subsequently, the patta has also been changed in the name of the Karuppasamy temple. In this regard, before the trial Court the copy of the patta dated 26.09.1996 was marked as Ex. A.5 and the kist receipt stands in the name of the said temple, was marked as Ex. A.7. Those documents will clearly prove that only the Thevar community people are involved in the development of the said temple and spend a reasonable amount for the welfare of the said temple. 12. In otherwise, on the side of the defendants in order to deny the evidences given by P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, no contra evidence was adduced. It is true, in the written statement filed by the defendants it was stated by them as apart from the Thevar community, the other community has also worshipped the temple. 12. In otherwise, on the side of the defendants in order to deny the evidences given by P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, no contra evidence was adduced. It is true, in the written statement filed by the defendants it was stated by them as apart from the Thevar community, the other community has also worshipped the temple. But in order to prove the same, no evidence was adduced on the side of the defendants. However in this case, no witnesses have been examined on the side of the defendants, which will show that the defendants have not taken any steps to prove that the temple now referred is a public temple as claimed by them. 13. Further it is to be noted that the people who are residing in the said village belong to the same community alone were examined as P.W. 2 to P.W. 6. They are all stated that only the Thevar community performed the pooja and celebrated the functions of Karuppasamy temple. So, the said evidence is enough to hold that the temple now referred in the suit is under the control of Thevar community people. In this regard, the Court below referred the judgment of our Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1983 SC 1 in which, it was held as follows:- "It must be a collection of individuals who have system of beliefs or doctrines, which they regard as conducive to their spiritual well-being, that in, common faith: (2) common organization and (3) Designation by a distinctive name" 14. So, applying the said principle with the case in our hand, only the people who belong to the Vilagam Village are having the name as like in the name of the Deity. It shows that the people of Vilagam Village are having common faith and common organization for developing the said temple. So all these aspects will prove that the said temple now under dispute is belonged to the Thever community people. 15. Even though it was pleaded by the defendants that the temple is under their control from the year 1976, no evidence is adduced on the side of HR&CE to prove the same. So without any evidence mere pleadings is not at all enough to prove the case of the defendants. 15. Even though it was pleaded by the defendants that the temple is under their control from the year 1976, no evidence is adduced on the side of HR&CE to prove the same. So without any evidence mere pleadings is not at all enough to prove the case of the defendants. Accordingly, the claim made by the Thevar Community people that the temple is a denominational one, is found correct and the findings arrived at by the Courts below do not need any interference. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law Nos. 4 and 5 are answered as above. Substantial question of law Nos. 1 and 2:- 16. As already stated before the trial Court the suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for themselves and on behalf of the Thevar community people residing in Villagam Village. In respect to the maintainability of the suit, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants would contend after referring Section 108 of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 as the learned Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli, is not having any jurisdiction to try the suit in respect of the administration and management of the religious institution. He further added that the Courts below without considering the said provision, tried the suit and granted the decree in favour of the respondents, is certainly illegal in view of Section 108 of the Act. 17. In this regard, now on going through the judgment rendered by the Courts below, it is found that before the trial Court the learned counsel who is appearing on behalf of the appellants herein fairly conceded that the civil Court is having the jurisdiction to try the suit. In Paragraph No. 8 of the judgment rendered by the learned Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli, the same was referred by the trial Judge. At this juncture, it is relevant to see the judgment of this Court in 1974/App. No. 471 of 1969 in the case of Sankarakumara Nadar Vs. The Asst. Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable. In Paragraph No. 8 of the judgment rendered by the learned Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli, the same was referred by the trial Judge. At this juncture, it is relevant to see the judgment of this Court in 1974/App. No. 471 of 1969 in the case of Sankarakumara Nadar Vs. The Asst. Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable. In the said judgment, the Division Bench of this Court has held as follows:- The argument is, if a question arises whether a temple is owned by the Hindu community as a whole or whether it is owned only by a section of that community, the dispute would then he one which can aptly he described as raising the question whether the institution is a temple or not within the meaning of Section 84 (1) of the Act. In our opinion, if this section is so construed, it would be placing a strained construction upon it and we think that the language of the section does not warrant such an interpretation. The section is intended to give jurisdiction to the Board to decide a dispute, when a dispute is raised, whether a particular institution is a math or temple as defined' by the Act; and not a dispute which admits the institution to be a temple-but that the temple is owned by a particular religious denomination such as the Gowd Saraswat Brahmin community and not by the Hindu Community as a whole. Section 84 (1) (a) of the Act, therefore, in our opinion, does not cover the dispute raised in : the present suit, and, therefore, the prohibition against the exercise of the jurisdiction by the civil Court under Section 84 (1) does not come into-operation. This decision has been followed' by Kailasam and N.S. Ramaswami, JJ. in L.P.A. Nos. 58 of 1968 and 31 of 1969. There also the suit was essentially for a declaration that the temple was a denominational one, though the plaint was not happily worded, and the learned Judges held that such a suit was not hit by Section 63 of the Act. They observed; Nowhere in the plaint is there any allegation that the temple is not a religious institution as defined under the Act. They observed; Nowhere in the plaint is there any allegation that the temple is not a religious institution as defined under the Act. The very averments in the plaint go to show that it is a temple as defined in the Act and it is conceded that the members of the particular community had a right of worship in the temple. The learned Judge seems to have understood the pleadings in the plaint as saying that the temple in question was a private temple. But there is nothing in the plaint to show that the plaintiffs claimed the temple as a private temple not coming under the definition of the terms 'religious institution or 'temple' under the Act. If the question really is as to whether the temple is a religious institution as defined under the Act or not, naturally it would be a question exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner as per the provisions of Section 63 of the Act. But as a matter of fact that is not the question to be decided in the suit because from the very averments it is clear that the plaintiffs concede that it is a religious institution as defined under the Act. All that they claim is that it is a denominational temple entitled to the protection contained in Article 26 of the Constitution, though it is not so specifically stated in so many words. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit regarding the main prayer also. 18. Further in the judgment reported in 2001 (3) MLJ 287 in the case of The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Administration Department, Nungambakkam, Madras, this Court has held as follows:- As regards the bar under Section 108 of the Act, when once it was established that the suit temples were denominational ones, then Sec. 108 would not apply. It had been clearly shown that the plaintiffs were the elected representatives of the said community. Exs. A-7 to A-9 were the entries in the Minutes Books. There is really no warrant for taking a different view. 19. Applying the said principle with the case in our hand, when at the time of answering the substantial question of law No. 4 it was decided by this Court that the temple in the suit is the denominational one. A-7 to A-9 were the entries in the Minutes Books. There is really no warrant for taking a different view. 19. Applying the said principle with the case in our hand, when at the time of answering the substantial question of law No. 4 it was decided by this Court that the temple in the suit is the denominational one. So, from the said principle already decided by this Court it is clear that the said temple is entitle to the provision contained under Article 26 of Constitution of India. Thereby, filing the suit before the learned Principal District Munsif, is not at all hit by any other law. 20. Further in respect to maintainability of the suit, this Court has already held in the judgment rendered in S.A.(MD) No. 468 of 2006 in the case of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Through its Joint Commissioner, Sivagangai Vs. Ramasamy and others and the same reads as follows:- For maintainability of the suit, the learned counsel for the 6th respondent relied on the judgments reported in 2003 (3) MLJ 1 (Aaralvaimozhi Sri Nainar Kulasekara Vinayagar Vellala Samudaya Temple, Vadakoor Vs. Palavasam Pillai and others) and 2001 (3) MLJ 287 (The Commissioner, H.R.&C.E. Administration Department, Madras Vs. V. Perumal Mudaliar and others) and submitted that a suit to declare that suit Temple is a particular denomination i.e., Sect of people, is maintainable. The learned counsel for the 6th respondent submitted that the first appellate Court has considered Exs. A2 and A8 to A10 and evidence of DW 1 in proper perspective and allowed the appeal. Accordingly, all the judgments referred above are all in favour of the plaintiffs and thereby the substantial questions of law Nos. 1 and 2 are answered as above. Substantial questions of Law No. 3:- 21. It is the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that at the time of ordering the interim application filed under Order 1 Rule 8, the learned trial Judge directed to issue notice to the public through paper publication. Hence, it is the duty of the plaintiffs to mention the full details of the case instituted, but in the paper publication nowhere it is stated that the details of the suit and about the relief prayed. Hence, it is the duty of the plaintiffs to mention the full details of the case instituted, but in the paper publication nowhere it is stated that the details of the suit and about the relief prayed. Hence, the said lapse committed by the plaintiffs will affect the root of the case instituted by them and thereby the concurrent decision rendered in favour of the plaintiffs is liable to be set aside. In this regard, he relied on the judgment of this Court reported in 2009 (3) CTC 126 in the case of S.A. Manian Vs. The Wildlife Nature and Environment Lovers of the General Public of Nilgiris District rep. by Ravikumar and S. Jeyachandran and 6 others, in which this Court has held as follows:- The notice under the provision must disclose the nature of the suit as well as reliefs claimed therein in order to enable the persons interested to get themselves impleaded as parties to the suit either to support the case or oppose it. The notice must state about why the suit has been filed and what is the relief claimed therein and it must also state as to who are the persons who have been selected to represent the cause....... 22. Before applying the facts of this case with the precedent now referred by the appellants, it should be necessary to see in the same judgment, in which, it was mentioned that the non-mentioning of the details of the case in the paper publication is a curable defect. In this regard, the stand taken by the appellants before this Court, is not taken before" the trial Court. Further, before the trial Court even the copy of the paper publication has not been marked to prove that the paper publication issued by the plaintiffs is a defective one. Furthermore, it is necessary to see that after allowing the application filed under Order 1 Rule 8 by the learned trial Judge no appeal or revision is preferred by the appellants immediately before proceeding with the trial. It shows that only for the purpose of this appeal the learned counsel appearing for the appellants would contend as like this. 23. In fact, the said arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is a matter in respect to the interim application filed by the plaintiffs. It shows that only for the purpose of this appeal the learned counsel appearing for the appellants would contend as like this. 23. In fact, the said arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is a matter in respect to the interim application filed by the plaintiffs. So, without challenging the order passed by the learned trial Judge in appropriate time raising objection in this second appeal is not entertainable. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law No. 3 is answered as above. 24. In the result, this Second Appeal is dismissed, by confirming the Judgment and Decree, dated 25.10.1999, passed in A.S. No. 64 of 1997, by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli and the Judgment and Decree dated 21.02.1997 passed in O.S. No. 757 of 1992 by the learned Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli. No costs.