JUDGMENT : R. Tharani, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. 2. This appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S. No. 22 of 2000 dated 24.09.2001 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Sankarankovil. 3. The appellant herein is the first defendant, the first respondent herein is the plaintiff and the respondents 2 and 3 herein are the defendants 2 and 3 in the suit. The first respondent filed a suit in O.S. No. 22 of 2000 before the learned Sub Judge, Sankarankovil seeking for a prayer to cancel the order of the Commissioner of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments passed in A.P. No. 14 of 1993 dated 18.08.1993 and to modify the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Tirunelveli dated 07.04.1993 in O.A. No. 7 of 1991 in so far as it relates to the plaintiff's right to Adi Thapasu Mandakapadi and to cancel the order of the Commissioner Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Madras dated 18.08.1993 passed in A.P. No. 17 of 1993 and to modify the order of the Deputy Commissioner Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments, Tirunelveli in O.A. No. 7 of 1991 dated 07.04.1993 in so far as it relates to denying the exclusive right of sponsoring for the performance of abisekam by the plaintiff to the Amman on the 11th day festival "Adi Thapasu" and to confer the same on him. 4. The suit was originally filed as O.S. No. 146 of 1994 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Tenkasi and was subsequently transferred to Sub Court, Sankarankovil on the point of jurisdiction and was numbered as O.S. No. 22 of 2000. The trial Court decreed the suit. Against which, the appellant has come forward with this appeal suit. 5. The brief substance of the case of the plaintiff is as follows: Arulmigu Navaneethakrishna Swamy Temple is an ancient renowned temple established by the ancestors of Uthumalai Zamindars and the temple is represented by its hereditary trustee. The second defendant is the Sankaranarayanan Temple represented by the Executive Officer. Every year Adi Thapasa festival is celebrated in the second respondent temple in a grand manner for 12 days during the tamil month of "Adi" relating to the gregorian calender month of July - August. The 11th day of the festival is the highlight of the entire Adi Thabasu festival. Every year Adi Thapasa festival is celebrated in the second respondent temple in a grand manner for 12 days during the tamil month of "Adi" relating to the gregorian calender month of July - August. The 11th day of the festival is the highlight of the entire Adi Thabasu festival. To prove the 'oneness' of god, Goddess Parvathi performed "Thabasu" (Penance) at this place and Lord Shiva and Lord Narayana in a single form named as Sankaranarayanan gave "Dharsan" before her on the 11th day of the festival. The Zamindars of Uthumalai have a right of the hereditary trusteeship of the plaintiff temple and this right is acknowledged and affirmed by the Government of Tamil Nadu and Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department. 6. The plaintiff temple represented by its hereditary trustee is the Mandakapadithar of the 11th day Adi Thapasu festival of the second defendant temple and the trustee is known as the "Adi Thapasu Mandagapadithar". This Mandakapadi is celebrated by the plaintiff represented by its hereditary Trustee, hereditarily, continuously, from time immemorial, for generation together and beyond human memory for more than 500 years. According to the local mythology, Lord Navaneetha Krishna is the elder brother of Goddess Gomathi. Since the Goddess Gomathi's wedding follows the "Thapasu Katchi" the honour to make preparations for the Thapasu resulting in the wedding of Goddess Gomathi with Lord Sankara was given to the plaintiff's temple to be performed through its hereditary trustee. It is the duty of the elder brother (Lord Narayana) to arrange and to perform Kannikathanam on the 12th day festival. Nobody else has any right over the 11th day festival and the wedding on the 12th festival. 7. The 11th day festival begins with the preparation for "Thapasu" by abisekam (celestial bath) and Alangaram (decorations). The plaintiff will be welcomed by the second defendant with Melam (holy music) to the temple. In the temple, it is the turn of the plaintiff to offer Alaippu surul (invitation) along with the pooja articles to Gomathi Amman. After the completion of the abisekam and decorations with the articles offered by the plaintiff, the deity Gomathi Amman is taken by the plaintiff on procession in a Golden sapparam (small palanquin) to the Uthumalai zamin Adi Thapasu Mandapam. In the Mandapam Goddess Gomathi Amman performs penance. After the completion of the abisekam and decorations with the articles offered by the plaintiff, the deity Gomathi Amman is taken by the plaintiff on procession in a Golden sapparam (small palanquin) to the Uthumalai zamin Adi Thapasu Mandapam. In the Mandapam Goddess Gomathi Amman performs penance. The said Thapasu Mandapam was constructed by one of the ancestors of the appellant solely for the purpose of this festival. After the penance, the Lord Shankara and Narayana both combined into one form as Sankaranarayanan gives Dharsan to Gomathi Amman. After the Dharsan is over, the deity of Gomathi Amman is again taken to the Thapasu Mandapam. Again in the evening there will be second Dharsan by Sankaralinga Swamy. After the second Dharsan, Gomati Amman is taken back to the temple. Then the Thabasu Alankaram is removed and the deity Gomathi Amman will be decorated as a bride. The next morning there will be the celestial wedding. 8. The 11th day festival includes abisekam, alankaram to the deity Amman to prepare the Amman for Thapasu, offering Alaippu surul to invite Amman for Thapasu, and to take the Amman on procession in the Golden sapparam to zamin Thapasu Mandapam, place her in Thapasu Mandapam to perform Thapasu, to take Amman to Thapasu Katchi, to bring her back to the Tapasu Mandapam, again to take Amman for second Katchi and to take her back to the temple and then the palliyarai Chirappu are the rights given to the plaintiff temple in recognition of the duties and honour for the elder brother namely Lord Navaneethakrishna, the incarnation of Lord Narayana the presiding Deity of the plaintiff Temple. The rights to perform the rites and rituals of the ceremony of Adi Thapasu to the Amman is given exclusively to the plaintiff. It is exercised and acknowledged for generation together without any interruption. 9. One Velayutham Mudaliar made a representation to the second defendant in respect of Swami Sankaranarayanan regarding the 11th day festival and he was permitted to perform a very limited rituals in respect of the deity Sankaranarayana by the order of the then Superintendent of the second defendant dated 22.07.1944, which reads as follows: xxxxxxxxxxxxx 10. In the year 1987, the first defendant tried to interfere in the ancestral rights of the plaintiff Mandagapadithar. The first defendant wanted to grab the rights of the plaintiff. In the year 1987, the first defendant tried to interfere in the ancestral rights of the plaintiff Mandagapadithar. The first defendant wanted to grab the rights of the plaintiff. The first defendant filed a petition in O.A. No. 7 of 1991 before the Deputy Commissioner of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments, Tirunelveli praying to declare his rights on the basis of the custom and usage whereas the first defendant does not have any such right. The first defendant is not entitled to perform the 11th day Mandakapadi during Adi Thapasa festival. The first defendant and his father never performed any rituals in respect of Amman. The rights of the first defendant is only in respect of Swami and not in respect of Gomathi Amman. The Deputy Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments on 07.01.1993 dismissed the claim of the first defendant. But he made an observation in respect of abisekam which interferes with the right of the plaintiff and vest the said right with the second defendant. Hence, the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.P. No. 17 of 1993 before the Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments, Madras. 11. The Commissioner erroneously dismissed the appeal in A.P. No. 17 of 1993 dated 18.08.1993 and allowed the appeal in A.P. No. 14 of 1993. The Commissioner elaborately discussed the case of the defendant but failed to mention the case of the plaintiff. The Commissioner failed to discuss anything regarding the evidence or Exhibits on the side of the plaintiff. The Commissioner failed to see that the first defendant never performed any rituals or had any right in respect of Goddess Gomathi Amman. The Commissioner made a wrong findings as if the first defendant and his predecessor were performing Mandakapadi for several years from 1944. The plaintiff and the Zamindars of Uthumalai having a history of over 1000 years and the Commissioner failed to consider the time immemorial, time honored, continuous custom and usage and rights of the plaintiff. The Commissioner failed to consider the counter filed by the second defendant in O.A. No. 7 of 1991. The Commissioner failed to consider that any claim which allegedly commenced from 1944 cannot be a right by custom and usage. The Commissioner failed to understand that it is not the amount of money that counts. The Commissioner failed to consider the counter filed by the second defendant in O.A. No. 7 of 1991. The Commissioner failed to consider that any claim which allegedly commenced from 1944 cannot be a right by custom and usage. The Commissioner failed to understand that it is not the amount of money that counts. It is the invaluable right which cannot be equated in terms of money which has to be considered. The Commissioner has failed to see that what the first defendant spends is for Swamy and not for Amman. Gomathi Amman performs "Thapasu" at the Uthumalai zamin Mandapam and hence, the plaintiff and its hereditary trustee alone are the Adi Thapasu Mandagapadithar. The Commissioner has failed to see that the first defendant's father was given some limited rights for some offerings in respect of Swamy which cannot be enlarged as a right given to the A.V.R.M.V. Sankaranarayanan and brothers. The Commissioner has failed to see that no sanction was given to the unilateral declaration stated in Ex. A3. The Commissioner has failed to consider that the basic principle that one who brings Alaippu surul alone has the right to take the deity on procession. 12. The first defendant has not proved the alleged custom and usage and the rituals performed in the Mandapam alone is called Mandagapadi and the Thapasu is perfonnedat Uthumalaizamin Mandapam and as such the plaintiff alone is the Adi Thapasu Mandagapadithar and appeal in A.P. No. 14 of 1993 is to be dismissed. The Commissioner failed to consider that the plaintiff alone pays for the seerpatham to take Gomathi Amman on procession and that the first defendant pays only for the Swamy. Hence, the plaintiff filed a suit under Section 70 of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act 22 of 1959. 13. The brief substance of the case of the first defendant is as follows: The plaintiff temple was established about 300 years ago by the then zamindar of Uthumalai but the suit temple Sankaranarayanan came into existence during 1022 A.D and the plaintiff acquired some right in the Aadi Thabasu festival some centuries after its establishment. Aadi Thapasu festival is conducted in some places and it was not celebrated with the funds of a vaishamavite temple. 14. The allegation that the plaintiff owned a separate Thabasu Mandapam of its own in Sanakarankovil is wrong. Aadi Thapasu festival is conducted in some places and it was not celebrated with the funds of a vaishamavite temple. 14. The allegation that the plaintiff owned a separate Thabasu Mandapam of its own in Sanakarankovil is wrong. The said building is claimed by one Pillayan Kattalai and others, there is a litigation between the plaintiff and Pillayan Kattalai. Tapasu Mandapam is registered as the property of pillayan kattalai in the registers prepared by the special Officer of the temple lands. There are four persons connected with the 11th day festival namely Pillaiyankattalai, Arulmighu Navaneethakrishna Swamy Devasthanam, Veerakeralampudur, A.V.R.M.V. Sankaranarayanan and brothers, Ambasamudram and T.P. Chidambaram Pillai Trust, Tirunelveli. Each one of them have given separate and particular functions to be performed. 15. The appellant/first defendant is the main Mandapapadithar. He meets the expenses for all the four functions mentioned below and he. received the honours like malai, Parivattam, etc in the suit temple and outside. This is the custom and usage followed for the past. 50 years. This right is recognised by the authorities of the suit temple and by the Department. There is no necessity that the Mandagapadithar has to own a separate mandapam. The first defendant is having his own Kalayan Mandapam (marriage hall) which can accommodate 2000 devotees. The first defendant is ready to perform all this rituals in his mandapam. The plaintiff used to bring Alaippu suril with vibudi bags (holy ashes) alone to the Uthsavar Amman deity. The abisekam is done with the articles brought by the first defendant. The notice and orders given by the second defendant temple authorities will clearly prove the rights of the first defendant. The first defendant alone has the right to take the Amman deity in the golden sapparam to the Thapasu Mandapam. The plaintiff has the right to do some rituals only after the deity is brought to Tapasu Mandapam. In the evening after thapasu Katchi, the plaintiff has to take the deity in the sapparam to the pandal erected by T.P. Chidambaram Pillai Trust. The plaintiff is not entitled to perform Amman Abisehgam Thapasu Alangaram, Thanga Sappara Alangaram (decoration of the golden sapparam) Chitharu Thengai Erithel (breaking of coconut) and to take the Amman back to the second defendant temple. Neither the plaintiff nor his predecessors ever performed these rituals as falsely stated in the plaint. 16. The plaintiff is not entitled to perform Amman Abisehgam Thapasu Alangaram, Thanga Sappara Alangaram (decoration of the golden sapparam) Chitharu Thengai Erithel (breaking of coconut) and to take the Amman back to the second defendant temple. Neither the plaintiff nor his predecessors ever performed these rituals as falsely stated in the plaint. 16. In 1944 this defendant's father, late A.V.R.M. Velayutha Mudaliar requested permission to perform the 11th day Mandagapadi "Adi Thapasu" festival of the suit temple in his letter dated 21.07.1944. The then Superintendent of the second respondent temple in his reference P.C. No. 7/1/54 dated 22.07.1944, has accepted that offer and passed an order in Ex. B1. 17. Ever since till he died on 29.07.1945, A.V.R.M. Velayutha Mudaliar was performing the suit Mandagapadi. In the beginning, the expenses were limited and Sri Velayutha Mudaliar paid Rs. 129/- as 'demanded by the then temple authorities and he obtained receipts. Over and above the expenses, he spent for the three utchavar and moolavar abisekam and for alankaram. The receipts themselves would describe the rituals for which the amounts were collected. The rituals in the suit Mandagapadi as described in the receipt are: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 18. Later After the death of Sri Velayutha Mudaliyar, this defendants who are his sons continue to perform the suit Mandagapadi. In the course of time, the expenses increased and even then the first defendant is performing the suit Mandagapadi at a grand sale. The plaintiff is performing a rituals of inviting Gomathi Amman by offering "Surul". Then the first defendant at their cost, take Sri Amman on procession around the suit temple to the Thapasu Mandapam. In 1968, the temple authorities described the rituals done by the first defendant as follows : xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 19. The same Executive Officer in the same reference defined the rituals performed by the plaintiff as follows: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 20. The invitations for the festival were printed by the second defendant temple authorities describing the suit Mandagapadi as above, year after year. The first defendant is entitled to the honours like Malai, Parivattam, etc in the temple before the Amman is taken to Thapusu Mandapam. After the above said ceremonies in the said Thapasu Mandapam, the plaintiff is given malai, Parivattam, etc., indicating that he was the Mandagapadithar at Thapasu mandapam. 21. The first defendant is entitled to the honours like Malai, Parivattam, etc in the temple before the Amman is taken to Thapusu Mandapam. After the above said ceremonies in the said Thapasu Mandapam, the plaintiff is given malai, Parivattam, etc., indicating that he was the Mandagapadithar at Thapasu mandapam. 21. The performance of abishekam, alangaram for the three deities, moolavar and utchavar, Sankaralingaswamy, Gomathi Amman and Sri Sankaranarayanan and taking Gomathi Amman on procession in the golden sapparam to Thapasu Mandapam and taking the deity Sankaranarayanan on procession in Rishaba Vahanam and on elephant vahanam, etc., taking the Amman in golden sapparam are done by the first defendant as per the custom and usage in the suit temple. The plaintiff began to interfere with the right of this defendant and claimed new rights to which he was not entitled to and which were not performed by him before. He create law and order problem. This defendant therefore filed O.A. No. 7 of 1991 before the Deputy Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments, Tirunelveli under Section 63(E) of the Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959. Though the plaintiff received the copy of the order of the Commissioner on 08.11.1993 he filed the suit with deficit court Fee only on 17.01.1994. The suit is to be dismissed in limini as time-barred as it is settled law that filing a plaint with deficit court fee will not save limitation. 22. On the side of the defendant, it is further stated that the suit is for a prayer to set aside two appeals namely A.P. Nos. 14 of 1993 and 17 of 1993. One such appeal order will be a res judicata for the other. The plaintiff temple cannot be represented by its hereditary trustee when there is an Executive Officer for the temple. A reading of the plaint will show that the plaintiff temple claims the right to perform the disputed rituals and therefore, the trustee cannot claim those rights as his personal right. Some rights are given to the temple and not to its hereditary trustee. The hereditary trustee cannot claim such rights as his personal rights. The zamin is not the fit person to represent the plaintiff temple. The plaintiff cannot claim the same after the zamin abolition. The first defendant's father was given the rights and after his death, his sons inherited the said rights. The hereditary trustee cannot claim such rights as his personal rights. The zamin is not the fit person to represent the plaintiff temple. The plaintiff cannot claim the same after the zamin abolition. The first defendant's father was given the rights and after his death, his sons inherited the said rights. This first defendant is given the sole right to perform the said festival function. 23. The brief substance of the written statement of the second defendant is as follows: Though the Zamindars of Uthumlai as the Hereditary Trustee of the plaintiff temple were performing rites and rituals connected with the 11th day celebration of Aadi Thapasu in the defendant temple, the performance was given up by the succeeding Zamindars. The father of the first defendant who offered to perform the same was permitted to do so and the father of the first defendant and then the first defendant have been performing the rites and rituals connected with the Aadi Thapasu festival in the defendant's temple. 24. The first defendant filed a petition in O.A. No. 7 of 1991 before the Deputy Commissioner Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Tirunelveli for a declaration that the first defendant is entitled by custom and usage to perform the 11th day Mandagapadi during Aadi Thapasu festival. The Deputy Commissioner after enquiry dismissed the same observing therein that abisekam of the Amman should be done by the second defendant alone. Both the first defendant and the plaintiff filed appeals in A.P. Nos. 14 and 17 of 1993. The Commissioner has passed a common order dated 18.08.1993 and has allowed the appeal in A.P. No. 14 of 1993 and dismissed the appeal in A.P. No. 17 of 1993. The order of the Commissioner is valid and binding on the plaintiff and the second defendant until it is set aside. 25. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues are framed: "1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as prayed for? (2) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? (3) Whether the suit is barred on the principle of res judicata? (4) To what relief?" 26. On the side of the plaintiff, one witness was examined as P.W. 1 and 69 documents were marked as Exs. A1 to A69 and Ex. (2) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? (3) Whether the suit is barred on the principle of res judicata? (4) To what relief?" 26. On the side of the plaintiff, one witness was examined as P.W. 1 and 69 documents were marked as Exs. A1 to A69 and Ex. X1 to X10 were marked and on the side of the defendant, three witnesses were examined as D.W. 1 to D.W. 3 and 17 documents were marked as Exs. B1 to B17. After considering the evidence and documents, the trial Court decreed the suit. Against which the appellant herein has come forward with this appeal. 27. In the memorandum of appeal, it is stated that the trial Court failed to understand the scope of the statuary suit filed under Section 70(1) of the Act under Section 63(e) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act 22 of 1959. The trial Court set aside the order of the Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments, Admn. Dept., Chennai passed in an appeal filed under Section 69(1) of the Act without properly appreciating the facts and question of law relating to the issue involved in this case. The Court below has failed to see that a custom and usage requires a long period of performing a festival in a temple and in the instant case, the appellant having been permitted by the temple in question to perform the 11th day of "Adi Thapasu" festival which was originally entrusted to the father of the appellant herein through an order passed by the temple, which fact has not been taken into consideration and there is no reason to reject the said document and the order passed by the temple creates a personal right for the appellant and his family for the performance of 11th day Adi Thapasu festival in Sri Sankaranarayana Swamy Temple situated in Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli District. 28. The plaintiff temple has nothing to do with Sri Sankaranarayana Swamy Temple and whether the first respondent claiming the right as the trustee of Sri Navaneethakrishna Swamy Temple or in his personal capacity is not clearly discussed in the Judgment in O.S. No. 22 of 2000. The trial Court has deliberately rejected Ex. 28. The plaintiff temple has nothing to do with Sri Sankaranarayana Swamy Temple and whether the first respondent claiming the right as the trustee of Sri Navaneethakrishna Swamy Temple or in his personal capacity is not clearly discussed in the Judgment in O.S. No. 22 of 2000. The trial Court has deliberately rejected Ex. B1 which is the order passed by the Board of Trustees and was communicated by the Superintendent of the Temple, permitting the father of the appellant herein to perform the 11th day of Adi Thapasu festival in the year 1944. The trial Court failed to consider that after the death of the father of the appellant, Sri Velayutha Mudaliar, the Temple has not passed any fresh orders permitting the appellant to continue the performance and that the trial Court also failed to take into consideration that an order passed in the year 1944, in favour of the father of the appellant herein, would automatically continue with his family and that there is no need for obtaining any fresh order and that since a dispute has been raised by the first respondent, the appellant has moved the statutory authority under Section 63(e) of the Act for the necessary relief. 29. The Court below has also failed to see that the appellant has continued the performance of the 11th day Adi Thapasu festival from the year 1944 till date and there has been no deviation by the temple authorities or by any quarters, in the performance of the 11th day Adi Thapasu festival. In the Judgment, it is stated that the plaintiff has a right to perform the 11th day Adi Thapasu festival of the temple. No such declaration can be granted on the proceeding initiated by the appellant. Taking of the Deity from Sri Sankaranarayana swamy Temple to the mandapam in question is a prerogative rights for the appellant only, on the basis of Ex. B1, an order issued by the temple authorities and subsequent document, ie. Srimukam and orders from the Deputy Commissioner etc., clearly confirms the right of the appellant and his family only. 30. The appellant herein is entitled to perform abishegam for the three Moolavar deities and also to Urchavar Deities. The first respondent is not entitled to perform abishegam or any other rituals to the Urchavar deities. Srimukam and orders from the Deputy Commissioner etc., clearly confirms the right of the appellant and his family only. 30. The appellant herein is entitled to perform abishegam for the three Moolavar deities and also to Urchavar Deities. The first respondent is not entitled to perform abishegam or any other rituals to the Urchavar deities. From the year 1944 the appellant is performing the rituals and when the first respondent made an attempt to interfere with the appellant's rights in the year 1990, an application under Section 63(e) of the Act was filed before the Deputy Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments, Tirunelveli. The Court below has summarily passed the order without throwing any light on the fact that the suit filed was a statutory suit under Section 70(1) of the Act and miserably failed to discuss the evidentiary value of the documents filed by the appellant in the suit, which has led to the miscarriage of justice. On account of this, a long practice and usage and the personal rights of the appellant has been put to jeopardized, which has led to the denial of justice in the matter. 31. The averments of the first respondent herein is that the appellant filed a petition under Section 63(c) of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act claiming some false non existing right of "Mandagapadi" of the Adi Thapasu festival in the second respondent Temple, it was rightly rejected by the Deputy Commissioner, who had also upheld the first respondent's right to the function. The Commissioner without knowing the ground realities reversed the order, resulting in the filing of O.S. No. 22 of 2000 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Sankarankovil. Only this respondent performs the Aadi Thapasu functions as a matter of right for generations together for more than 500 years. It is the duty of the first respondent to bring Alaippu Surul to Goddess Gomati and to offer articles for abisekam and to take the Amman in golden sapparam to the Tapasu Mandapam. 32. Only this respondent performs the Aadi Thapasu functions as a matter of right for generations together for more than 500 years. It is the duty of the first respondent to bring Alaippu Surul to Goddess Gomati and to offer articles for abisekam and to take the Amman in golden sapparam to the Tapasu Mandapam. 32. On the side of the respondents, it is stated that it is seen from the temple records that the plaintiff is having a right to offer materials for Moolavar abishekam and that the first respondent could take Gomathi Amman deity on procession in golden sapparam to the Thapasu Mandapam and the Amman deity will be in the mandapam till evening with Thapasu Kolam and then Gomathi Amman is brought to Katchi by the first respondent herein, the appellant has a right to bring Sankaranarayana swamy from the temple in Rishaba Vaganam to the place of Katchi. Thereafter, Sri Sankaranarayana Swamy will return to his temple and the first respondent will take the deity Gomathi Amman to Thapasu Mandapam. Again in the night Sri Sankaralinga swamigal will be brought in Elephant Vaganam by the appellant and his family to the place of Katchi, where Gomathi Amman and Sankaralinga Swamigal will exchange garlands and both of them will return to the temple. 33. Adi Tapasu is one of the biggest celebrations of the then undivided Tirunelveli District, which gather about 5 lakhs of people. If the appellant got any right the same is restricted only with Sankaranarayana Swamy and not to Gomathi Amman. The appellant claimed right through long and continuous usage. The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act came into force only in the year 1926 and the respondent's right was prior in time for over 500 years. The claim under 63 of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act should be based on a custom and not based on a sanction. The right of the respondent is in force for over 500 years and long before the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department was thought of in 1920's. The Act of the appellant is nothing but an anachronism and is a gross error of understanding history and rights under Section 63 of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act. Only to drag on the case endlessly, this appeal is filed and it is liable to be dismissed. 34. Only to drag on the case endlessly, this appeal is filed and it is liable to be dismissed. 34. The points that arise for consideration in this appeal are: "1) Whether the appellant is having the right to sponsor for the 11th day of Adi Thapasu festival for the Gomati Amman? (2) Whether the first respondent is having a customary right? (3) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? (4) Whether the suit filed by the first respondent is maintainable? (5) Whether the trial Court is correct in declining the rights of the first respondent? (6) Whether this appeal is to be allowed?" Issue No. 1: 35. The appellant filed a petition in O.A. No. 7 of 1991 before the Deputy Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments to declare that A.V.R.M.V. Sankaranarayanan and brothers are entitled to perform Mandagapadi (Sponsorship) pertaining to the 11th day of Aadi Thapasu festival with regard to Gomati Amman. The claim of the appellant is that they are having the right to sponsor for the abishekam (celestial bath) and alangaram (decoration) of Gomati Amman and having a right to take they Gomati Amman on procession in a golden palanquin (golden sapparam) to the Thapasu Mandapam and after the completion of Thapasu Katchi and the second Katchi to take Gomati Amman on procession in the golden sapparam back to the temple. This petition is the basis for this appeal. Hence, whether the appellant is having a right to sponsor for the above said festival pertaining to the Goddess Gomati Amman is to be decided in this case. 36. In O.A. No. 7 of 1991, the Deputy Commissioner conducted enquiry and dismissed the petition filed by the appellant. Against that order, both the appellant and the first respondent preferred two appeals before the Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments, in A.P. Nos. 14 and 17 of 1993. The Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments has allowed the appeal filed by the appellant in A.P. No. 14 of 1993 and he dismissed the appeal filed by the first respondent in A.P. No. 17 of 1993. Aggrieved by the order, the first respondent filed a suit in O.S. No. 146 of 1994 before the Subordinate Court, Tenkasi which was transferred and was re-numbered as O.S. No. 22 of 2000 before the Subordinate Court, Sankarankovil. The suit was decreed by the Subordinate Court, Sankarankoil. Aggrieved by the order, the first respondent filed a suit in O.S. No. 146 of 1994 before the Subordinate Court, Tenkasi which was transferred and was re-numbered as O.S. No. 22 of 2000 before the Subordinate Court, Sankarankovil. The suit was decreed by the Subordinate Court, Sankarankoil. Against which, the appellant has filed this appeal. 37. The prayer for the appellant in O.A. No. 7 of 1991 is that the petitioners are the Mandagapadithar (Sponsors) for the performance of abisekam (celestial bath), alagaram (decoration) for the three deities and for taking the deity Gomati Amman on procession in a golden sapparam as per the custom and usage in the temple. 38. It is seen that the specialty of the temple is that Gomati Amman undertook penance to prove the martyrs that Saivam and Vaishnavam are one and the same and Lord Shiva and Lord Vishnu are one and the same and that both of them came in a single form (Roopam) as Lord Sankaranarayanan on the 11th day festival. The 11th day festival is named as Tapasu Katchi starts by giving Alaippu Sural (invitation) to Gomati Amman. After completion of abishekam and alagaram, the deity was taken on procession in a golden sapparam to thapasu mandapam for performing penance. Then the deity will be taken for Katchi that is Sankara and Narayana give dharsan to Amman as Sankaranarayanan in a unified form and bless her. After the Katchi is over, Amman is taken back to Thapasu Mandapam. Then she is taken to the second Katchi of Sankaralingaswamy and then Gomati Amman is taken back to the temple. 39. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the appellant is having the right of Mandagapadithar (sponsor) for the 11th day Adi Thapasu festival and is having a right for offering articles for abisekam (celestial bath) and alagaram (decoration) and for taking the deity Gomati Amman on procession in a golden sapparam to the Tapasu Mandapam. The claim of the appellant is based on the order passed by the Superintendent of the temple dated 22.07.1944 which is marked as Ex. B1. The original of the order passed by the Superintendent is marked as Ex. B17. The receipts issued by the second respondent in favour of the appellant during the years 1986 - 1991 is marked as Ex. B2, Exs. B1. The original of the order passed by the Superintendent is marked as Ex. B17. The receipts issued by the second respondent in favour of the appellant during the years 1986 - 1991 is marked as Ex. B2, Exs. B3 to B13, B15 and B16 are the invitations for Adi Thapasu festival for the year 1974, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1990. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the mother of the appellant executed a gift deed for the trust and the gift deed dated 27.02.1962 is marked as Ex. B14. 40. On the side of the respondents, it is stated that the Superintendent is not having any authority to confer any such right to the appellant. It is stated that as the hereditary trustee of Navaneethakrishna temple, the first respondent alone is having the above said rights to sponsor for the abisekam (celestial bath), alagaram (decoration) of deity Gomati Amman and to take the deity Amman on procession in the golden sapparam. This festival was sponsored by the predecessors of the first respondent from time immemorial. It is stated that according to the belief in that area, the first respondent Navaneetha Krishna Swami is the elder brother of Gomati Amman and as the hereditary trustee of the Navaneetha Krishna Swami Temple, the first respondent is entitled to sponsor for the 11th day Adi Thapasu festival and that the appellant is not having any right over the 11th day festival pertaining to the deity Gomati Amman. The certified copy of history of the second defendant temple is marked as Ex. A15 and a certified copy of Thiru naga surukkam of the second defendant is marked as Ex. A16. 41. On the side of the first respondent, the day book for the year 1991 - 1992 was filed as Ex. A1. The bills regarding the purchases of sarees, Jawli, silk items, dhoties, etc for the year 1979, 1982, 1984, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1990 were marked as Ex. A4. The letter written by the first respondent's predecessor to the Highway Department for permission to erect Pandal was marked as Exs. A5 and A6. Kist for the Thapasu Mandapam was paid by the first respondent from the year 1981 to 1990 which was marked as Ex. A7. A4. The letter written by the first respondent's predecessor to the Highway Department for permission to erect Pandal was marked as Exs. A5 and A6. Kist for the Thapasu Mandapam was paid by the first respondent from the year 1981 to 1990 which was marked as Ex. A7. The letter written by the second respondent to the first respondent and the appellant was marked as Ex. A10. Invitation for Adi Thapasu for the years 1991 and 1993 were marked as Exs. A2 and A13 and kattalai invitation was marked as Ex. A3. The photograph series was marked as Ex. A11. The receipts for payment for seerpadam (bearers of the golden sapparam) for the years 1979, 1981, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990 were marked as Ex. A14. 42. It is stated that the first respondent who is the hereditary trustee of the first respondent temple was the then Zamin of Uthumalai. The day book of Uthumalai Estate-Entry relating to Adi Thapasu festival for the years 1941, 1942, 1945, 1946, 1948, 1949, 1952 were marked as Ex. A17. The day book entries of the first respondent temple for the years 1954, 1959 to 1965 were marked as Ex. A18. The cash book entries for the years 1966, 1967, 1968, 1952 were marked as Ex. A19. Cost-statement for miscellaneous expenses for Tapasu Mandapam for the years 1980, 1981, 1984, 1987 to 1997 were marked as Ex. A20. Certified copies of voucher and receipts relating to Adi Thapasu festival for the years 1942, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1965, 1966 to 1972 were marked as Exs. A21 to A25, A32, A33, A36, A38, A40, A42 to A45, A47 to A50. Certified copies of the files for Adi Thapasu for the years 1951 to 1957, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1966, 1969, 1975, 1976, 1978 wearer marked as Exs. A26 to A31, A34, A35, A37, A39, A41, A46, A53, A54 and A55. Certified copies of cash book of the plaintiff for the years 1973, 1974, 1980, 1981, 1984, 1987 were marked as Exs. A51, A52, A56 to A59. The certified copy of the statement of expenditure of the plaintiff for the year 1988 was marked as Ex. A60. Certified copies of cost statement for the years 1989 to 1997 were marked as Exs. A61 to A69. 43. A51, A52, A56 to A59. The certified copy of the statement of expenditure of the plaintiff for the year 1988 was marked as Ex. A60. Certified copies of cost statement for the years 1989 to 1997 were marked as Exs. A61 to A69. 43. The proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments in O.A. No. 7 of 1991, pages from 9 to 17 was marked as Ex. X1 and the proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments in O.A. No. 7 of 1991, Pages from 85 to 97 was marked as Ex. X2, Deposition of R.W. 1 in O.A. No. 7 of 1991 (from pages 173 to 178) was marked as Ex. X4. Judgment of O.A. No. 7 of 1991 (from pages 247 to 269) was marked as Ex. X6. The appeal filed before the Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments, by the first defendant is marked as Ex. X7. The petition by the plaintiff for stay of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments, Tirunelveli in respect of the abisekam (from pages 49 to 52) was marked as Ex. X8. The order of the Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments dated 18.08.1993 (from pages 65 to 70) was marked as Ex. X9. The deposition of witness Lakshmi Narayanan in the file in O.A. No. 7 of 1991 of Deputy Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Tirunelveli was marked as Ex. X10. 44. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that after the abolition of zamindari system, the first respondent is not having any right over the first respondent temple. There was a vacuum in the sponsorship regarding the 11th day festival and at that time, the right was given to the appellant's family. From that time from 1944 onwards, the appellant and his family members has the right to sponsor for the 11th day festival. 45. There was a vacuum in the sponsorship regarding the 11th day festival and at that time, the right was given to the appellant's family. From that time from 1944 onwards, the appellant and his family members has the right to sponsor for the 11th day festival. 45. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that on 22.07.1944, the father of the appellant got a hereditary right to sponsor for the abisekam alangaram of the deity Gomati Amman and he has got a right to take Gomati Amman on procession in a golden sapparam to the Thapasu Mandapam and ever since the appellant and his family members are sponsoring for the above said performances during the 11th day Adi Thapasu festival. Ex. B1 is the order issued by the Superintendent of the second respondent. 46. On the side of the respondents, it is stated that the Superintendent of Sankaranarayanan Temple is not having any right to issue an order permitting the appellant to sponsor the 11th day of festival. It is stated that P.W. 1 (appellant herein) has deposed that Executive Officer was appointed in the temple in the year 1944, before the appointment of the Executive Officer, there was only the Superintendent in the temple. Whereas D.W. 2, the Superintendent of Sankaranarayanan temple has deposed that there was a scheme in the year 1932 and the administration was done by a Trust with the help of three panchayatars and as per the scheme, the Superintendent was having a right only to look after the income and expenditure and till 23.10.1944, the administration was in the hands of the trust. He has further deposed that as per the records seen by him, the Superintendent was not having any right to pass the order, Ex. B1. The original of the order was marked as Ex. B17. 47. D.W. 2 has deposed that there is no office seal in Ex. B1 and that the Superintendent is having power only to maintain the accounts. It is further stated that there were material difference between Ex. B17 and Ex. B1. Ex. B17 was the original retained in the second respondent office, Ex. B17 was not in the letter pad and was handwritten. It is stated that there was no seal of the temple in Ex. B1 whereas the seal of the temple was given in Ex. B17. 48. B17 and Ex. B1. Ex. B17 was the original retained in the second respondent office, Ex. B17 was not in the letter pad and was handwritten. It is stated that there was no seal of the temple in Ex. B1 whereas the seal of the temple was given in Ex. B17. 48. On the side of the first respondent, it is stated that as per the evidence of D.W. 2, there were three higher officers than the Superintendent and they have the authority to give such a permission and the Superintendent had no such authority. It is stated that the Executive Officer was appointed in the year 1922 and the Deputy Commissioner in his order had given a clear finding that the Superintendent was not the authority to confer any such rights and that the appellant has failed to file any documents to show that the Superintendent was authorised to permit anybody to sponsor for the festival as stated in Ex. B17. 49. On the side of the respondents, it is stated that Ex. B1 was issued on the basis of a request made by the appellant's father and that the request letter was not marked either by the appellant or by the second defendant and that what are the rights requested by the father of the appellant is not explained on the side of the appellant. 50. On the side of the respondent, it is stated that the wordings in Ex. B1 reveals that permission to sponsor for the pooja to Swamy was given to the father of the appellant and there is no wording as to "Pooja to Gomati Amman" and that even assuming Ex. B1 is admissible, the appellant cannot claim any right for sponsoring for the deity Gomati Amman on the basis of Ex. B1 and that the brother of the appellant in his evidence before the Deputy Commissioner has clearly deposed that they never sponsored for the pooja for the deity Gomati Amman. The brother of the appellant in his evidence in O.A. No. 7 of 1991 has deposed that "there is no wordings regarding Amman in Ex. A1 (Ex. B1 herein)". 51. P.W. 1 in O.A. No. 7 of 1991 (brother of the appellant herein) has deposed that his father filed a petition for permission only regarding the Swamy (male deity). Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 52. A1 (Ex. B1 herein)". 51. P.W. 1 in O.A. No. 7 of 1991 (brother of the appellant herein) has deposed that his father filed a petition for permission only regarding the Swamy (male deity). Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 52. On the side of the respondents, it is stated that in Ex. A2 receipt, marked in O.A. No. 7 of 1991, one document dated 1945 was issued in the name of Velayutham Mudaliar and in that document, there are material alterations. It is stated that the wordings are clearly inserted in the document and that the appellant has not produced any evidence justifying the insertion of the words. 53. P.W. 1 in O.A. No. 7 of 1991 (Brother of the appellant) had admitted that there are material corrections in Ex. A2 marked in O.A. No. 7 of 1991. His deposition in Ex. X10 reads as follows: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Ex. A2 in O.S. No. 7 of 1991 was a xerox copy of the receipt and the same was not marked in this case. 54. The rights claimed by the appellant are as follows: (i) Right to offer articles for abishekam. (ii) Right to offer articles for alangaram. (iii) Right to take the Gomathi Amman on procession in the golden sapparam. 55. The appellant himself has admitted that it is the first respondent who offer Alaippu Surul (invitation) to the Gomathi Amman. This is confirmed by the evidence of D.W. 2 and D.W. 3. 56. D.Ws. 2 and 3 gave evidence stating that the appellant is not sponsoring for the abishekam (celestial bath) and alangaram (decoration) for Gomati Amman and the appellant is not taking Gomati Amman on procession in the golden sapparam. D.W. 3 has deposed that abisekam to the Gomathi Amman will be done only with the articles offered by the first respondent. It is clear from the evidence of D.W. 2 and D.W. 3 that the first respondent is sponsoring for the abishekam of the Amman. 57. D.W. 3 has deposed that along with 'Alaippu Surul', the first respondent used to bring wig, lemon garland, silk saree, etc., and only with the articles brought by the first respondent, Gomathi Amman will be decorated for thapasu Katchi and the articles brought by others will not be used for the decoration of the Gomathi Amman. 57. D.W. 3 has deposed that along with 'Alaippu Surul', the first respondent used to bring wig, lemon garland, silk saree, etc., and only with the articles brought by the first respondent, Gomathi Amman will be decorated for thapasu Katchi and the articles brought by others will not be used for the decoration of the Gomathi Amman. The evidence of D.W. 3 clearly reveals that only the first respondent used to bring the articles for the decoration of Gomathi Amman. His evidence is as follows: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 58. The appellant claims the right of taking the Gomathi Amman on procession in the golden sapparam. The appellant has deposed that his brother in his evidence before the Deputy Commissioner in Ex. X10 has admitted that they are not sponsoring for the procession of Gomathi Amman in golden sapparam. The evidence of D.W. 1 (appellant) is as follows: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 59. D.W. 2 has deposed that the first respondent is taking Gomathi Amman on procession in golden sapparam Continuously. D.W. 2 and D.W. 3 have deposed that in Ex. A10 dated 23.07.1997, it is stated that the plaintiff has to take the Amman in golden sapparam. The brother of the appellant in his evidence (Ex. X10) before the Deputy Commissioner has deposed that in Ex. B1 (Ex. A1 in O.A. No. 7 of 1991), there is no wordings regarding the Amman (female deity). His words are as follows: Xxxxxxxxxxxx 60. On the side of the first respondent, it is stated that after the completion of decoration Gomathi Amman used to be taken to Thapasu Mandapam and that Mandapam was constructed by the then zamin of Uthumalai exclusively for the purpose of this festival. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the Thapasu Mandapam belonged to Pillayan Kattalai and not to the first respondent. The appellant has deposed that he is having a marriage hall which can accommodate 2000 people and that he is willing to conduct the Thapasu Katchi there but the temple authorities did not permit him to do so. 61. The permission stated in Ex. B1 was in favour of the father of the appellant. Ex. B1 was addressed to the father of the appellant namely Velayutha Mudaliar. Ex. B2 were the receipts for payment of some amount for Adi Thapasu 11th day festival. In Ex. 61. The permission stated in Ex. B1 was in favour of the father of the appellant. Ex. B1 was addressed to the father of the appellant namely Velayutha Mudaliar. Ex. B2 were the receipts for payment of some amount for Adi Thapasu 11th day festival. In Ex. B2 all the receipts annexed were in the name of A.V.R.M.V. Sankaranarayanan and brothers. The name A.V.R.M.V. Sankaranarayanan and brothers was mentioned in the invitations, Exs. B3 to B13, B15 and B16 filed by the appellant. 62. In the evidence of D.W. 1, he had admitted that in O.A. No. 7 of 1991 the petitioner was described as A.V.R.M.V. Sankaranarayanan & brothers. He had further deposed that A.V.R.M.V. Sankaranarayanan and brothers was not a partnership firm. In Ex. B1, the name of the brothers of A.V.R.M.V. Sankaranarayanan was not mentioned. P.W. 1 had further stated that the right of sponsoring the 11th day festival will be given to his legal heirs after his demise and his brothers have no right and that the name 'Sankaranarayanan and sons' should have been mentioned in Ex. X1. His evidence is as follows: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 63. From the above said evidence, it is clear that the appellant wants the right for sponsoring the festival for himself and for his legal heirs. A perusal of Ex. B1, clearly reveals that no such hereditary right was granted to the father of the appellant. How long Velayutha Mudaliar was permitted to sponsor for the festival was not specifically mentioned in Ex. B1. In Ex. B1, no time limit was stated and that does not mean that a hereditary right was granted under Ex. B1. Ex. X10 is the copy of evidence of the brother of the appellant given before the Deputy Commissioner in O.A. No. 7 of 1991 wherein the brother of the appellant has admitted that "we are not sponsoring for the festival as a hereditary right and only from 1944, we-are sponsoring for the festival." Even in this case, the appellant herein has admitted the above version of his brother as follows: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 64. Except Ex. B1, almost all the documents were addressed to A.V.R.M.V. Sankaranarayanan and brothers. The appellant filed the petition in O.A. No. 7 of 1991 as A.V.R.M.V. Sankaranarayanan and brothers. Except Ex. B1, almost all the documents were addressed to A.V.R.M.V. Sankaranarayanan and brothers. The appellant filed the petition in O.A. No. 7 of 1991 as A.V.R.M.V. Sankaranarayanan and brothers. In his deposition, P.W. 1 in O.A. No. 7 of 1991 who is the brother of the defendant has clearly stated that after the demise of their father, they had no orders to sponsor the 11th day festival either from the temple or from the Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 65. It is stated that Velayutha Mudaliyar died in the year 1945, Ex. B1 permission was granted in the year 1944. Velayutha Mudaliyar might have utilised the right only once in his life time, as this festival is conducted only once in a year. The claim of the appellant is that even after the death of Velayutha Mudaliyar, his family members are utilising the permission but no document was filed to show that the family members of Velayutha Mudaliar utilised the above said rights from the year 1945 to 1965. All the document filed by the appellant are after the year 1965 only. 66. The claim of the appellant as stated in paragraph no. 10 of Ex. X1 is that he 'claim the rights under customs and usages'. The appellant has admitted the same in his evidence. He has further admitted that his brother has deposed in Ex. X10 that "we do not sponsor the festival as hereditary trustees." 67. The appellant claim right based on custom and usage. It is stated that for the past 60 years, the appellant is sponsoring for 11th day festival pertaining to Gomati Amman and he is entitled for the right under customs and usage. The right of the appellant is based on Ex. B1. The term "Custom" denote an act being followed for an immemorable period and not from a specific date. A customary right cannot be claimed from a specific date or through a specific document. 68. The definition of custom reads as follows: "A custom exists in a particular locality only in respect of some particular matter or matters; other matters within the same locality are governed by the general common law. The one is the necessity of the existence of a custom, either actually or presumptively, from time immemorial, and the other is the confinement of all customs to a definite limited locality." 69. The one is the necessity of the existence of a custom, either actually or presumptively, from time immemorial, and the other is the confinement of all customs to a definite limited locality." 69. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that as per the directions of Endowment Board, the appellant's mother settled some property for sponsoring for the festival. On the side of the respondents, it is stated that there is no wordings in the settlement deed regarding the endowment to have been made for the 11th day, festival and that the evidence of P.W. 1 reveals that the property is in the possession of the appellant and not in the possession of the second respondent temple. The evidence of the appellant clearly reveals that there is no wordings in the settlement deed for conducting the 11th day festival regarding Gomati Amman out of the income of the particular property. The report of the second respondent reveals that all the properties mentioned are already sold out without the permission of the second respondent and there are two appeals pending before this Court. The claim of the appellant does not fit to the definition for 'customs'. Hence, it is decided that the appellant cannot claim a customary right under Ex. B1 and from a specific period. 70. There is no wordings in Ex. B1 to denote that the permission was granted as a hereditary right. A Superintendent cannot confer a hereditary right. Hence, there cannot be a hereditary right. Exs. B3 to B13 and B15 and B16 were invitations for the festival and invitations cannot confer any right. The only document in support of the appellant other than Ex. B1 is Ex. B2. All the receipts filed by the appellant are after the year 1986. There is no document to prove that from the year 1946 to 1974, the appellant or his family members were sponsoring for the Adi Thapasu festival. 71. There is no document on the side of the appellant to show their sponsorship from the year 1945 -1974. But the document on the side of the first respondent is continuous and it is seen that even during that period from 1945 - 1974, the first respondent was sponsoring-for the 11th day festival. 72. The claim of the appellant is based on Ex. But the document on the side of the first respondent is continuous and it is seen that even during that period from 1945 - 1974, the first respondent was sponsoring-for the 11th day festival. 72. The claim of the appellant is based on Ex. B1 and the appellant has to prove that the Superintendent was authorised to issue Ex. B1. The appellant has failed to prove that the right of sponsorship for the 11th day festival was given as a hereditary right obviously the Superintendent of a temple has no power to grand a hereditary right. The wordings in Ex. B1 does not denote any hereditary right. Permission is given only to Velayutham Mudaliar and not to anybody else. The appellant has failed to prove that the said permission was further extended. The appellant has failed to prove that the permission was further continued. Ex. B2 all the receipts were issued in the name of A.V.R.M.V. Sankaranarayanan and brothers. The brothers of A.V.R.M.V. Sankaranarayanan are not parties to the suit. Even Ex. B1 did not permit Velyutham Mudaliar to sponsor for the deity Gomati Amman. The word mentioned in Ex. B1 is 'Swamy' not 'Amman' or Gomati Amman. The brother of the appellant himself has clearly deposed that his father requested permission for sponsoring the 11th day festival regarding the Swamy alone. The evidence of D.W. 2 and D.W. 3 clearly reveals that the right of sponsoring the 11th day pertaining to the Gomati Amman is only with the first respondent and not with the appellant. The endowment said to have been made for 11th day festival for Gomathi Amman by the mother of the appellant is not proved. Settlement of some property for a trust cannot confer any right to the appellant. Ex. B1 gave some permission to Velayutha Mudaliar and not to his brothers or his family members. All the receipts are in the name of A.V.R.M.V. Sankaranarayanan and brothers. Receipts in Ex. B2 and the invitations in Exs. B3 to B13, B15 to B16 will not confer any right to the appellant. Ex. B1 was not given in the name of Sankaranarayanan or his brothers. No time limit is stated in Ex. B1. No documents were filed from the year 1945 to 1974 to show that the appellant and his family members were sponsoring for the festival for Gomathi Amman. Ex. B1 was not given in the name of Sankaranarayanan or his brothers. No time limit is stated in Ex. B1. No documents were filed from the year 1945 to 1974 to show that the appellant and his family members were sponsoring for the festival for Gomathi Amman. The evidence of the brother of the appellant before the Deputy Commissioner which is marked as Ex. X10 clearly reveals that the right given to the father of the appellant is not a hereditary right. Appellant cannot claim right by way of custom and usage on the basis of Ex. B1 from 1944 A customary right cannot be claimed from a particular date through a particular document. Hence, it is decided that the appellant is not having any right to sponsor for the 11th day festival pertaining to the deity Gomati Amman. Issue No. 2: 73. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the trial Court is wrong in giving a relief of declaration in favour of the first respondent in the proceedings initiated on the basis of the petition filed by the appellant. The relief sought for by the petitioner in Ex. X1 is as follows: "The performance of Abisekam, Alankaram for the three deities. Moolavar and Utchavar, Sankaralingaswamy, Gomathi Amman and Sri Sankaranarayanar and taking Gomathi Amman on the Thapasu Katchi for performing the 1st and 2nd Katchigal and taking them in procession on Rishaba Vahanam, on elephant Vahanam, golden sapparam by the petitioner is the custom and usage in the suit temple. The petitioners pay for all the said functions. The petitioners exhibit their banners as Mandagapadithar, where the Mandagapadi is performed, so that the devotees may know who is performing the Mandagapadi. They are also entitled to exhibit their banners during the processions. No one else, much less the first respondent, is entitled to exhibit any banner either in the Mandagapadi while the Abisekam, Alankaram, etc are performed as in the Amman procession to the Thapasu Mandapam. This has been in vogue for the past 48 years. The petitioners pay to the temple for Seerpatham and for this the temple has issued receipts mentioning the above expenses. The first respondent has nothing to do with the above rituals. He has no right to interfere with them. This has been in vogue for the past 48 years. The petitioners pay to the temple for Seerpatham and for this the temple has issued receipts mentioning the above expenses. The first respondent has nothing to do with the above rituals. He has no right to interfere with them. Hence the petitioners pray that the Deputy Commissioner to declare and decide that by custom and usage the petitioners are entitled to perform the suit Mandagapadi." 74. The claim of the appellant in the petition, Ex. X1 is that the first respondent has nothing to do with the above rituals and that he has no right to interfere with the rights of the appellant to sponsor for the Abishekam (celestial bath) and alangaram (decoration), etc for the Amman and to take the Amman on procession to the Tapasu Mandapam. Since the claim of the appellant is against the first respondent, the rights of the first respondent also has to be decided in this appeal. 75. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the first respondent has not produced any records to show that he was authorised to sponsor the 11th day festival of Gomati Amman whereas the appellant has filed Ex. B1 permuting him to sponsor for both Swamy and Gomati Amman and that the word 'Swamy' denote both male and female deities. 76. On the side of the first respondent, it is stated that the 11th day Adi thapasu festival is sponsored by the first respondent and his family members from time immemorial. On the side of the first respondent, it is stated that the Zarnindars of Uthumalai were the hereditary trustees of the first respondent temple. The Zarnindars of Uthumalai were the Kings at that time and they were the legislative agencies at that time and that there was no need for a specific order in writing at that time. 77. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the Zamindari system was already abolished. The first respondent cannot claim right as the Zamindar of Uthumalai. On the side of the first respondent, it is stated that it was only the appellant who described the first respondent as the Zamindar of Uthumalai in this appeal and in the petition in O.A. No. 7 of 1991 and in the other proceedings. The first respondent cannot claim right as the Zamindar of Uthumalai. On the side of the first respondent, it is stated that it was only the appellant who described the first respondent as the Zamindar of Uthumalai in this appeal and in the petition in O.A. No. 7 of 1991 and in the other proceedings. It is stated that though Zamindari system was abolished, the family of the then Zarnindars still continues to be the hereditary trustees of the first respondent temple. The certified copies of the files regarding the Adi Thapasu festival for the year 1951 to 1957, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1966, 1969, 1975, 1976, 1978 were marked as Exs. A26 to A31, A34, A35, A37, A39, A41, A46, A53, A54 and A55. Certified copies of the vouchers and receipts for the years from 1942 to 1970 were marked as Exs. A21 to 25, A32, A33, A36, A38, A40, A42 to A45, A47 to A50. The accounts of the first respondent was subject to audit every year. 78. On the side of the respondents, it is stated that according to the local Mythology, Navaneetha Krishnan Swamy is the elder brother of Gomati Amman. The 12th day festival is the celestial marriage of Lord Shiva and Goddess Parvathi. As a elder brother Lord Vishnu, the first respondent/the plaintiff has a right to invite Gomati Amman and to sponsor for the abishekam(celestial bath) and alangaram for Gomati Amman and to take the deity Amman on procession in golden chariot to Thapasu Madapam to perform Thapasu, then to take the Amman to Thapasu Katchi to bring her back to the zamin Thapasu Mandapam, again prepare her for second Katchi and to take her back to temple and also prepare her for the marriage to be held the next day and all these procession is done only by the first respondent. 79. The appellant in his evidence has admitted that the appellant is not having any right to offer invitation (alaipu sural) to Gomati Amman. P.W. 2 has deposed that the first respondent is having the right to invite Gomati Amman deity for the festival. As the appellant himself has admitted that the first respondent is having the right to offer 'alaippu sural' to Gomati Amman, it is decided that the first respondent represented by the hereditary trustee is having the right to offer Alaippu Sural to Gomati Amman. 80. As the appellant himself has admitted that the first respondent is having the right to offer 'alaippu sural' to Gomati Amman, it is decided that the first respondent represented by the hereditary trustee is having the right to offer Alaippu Sural to Gomati Amman. 80. On the side of the first respondent, it is stated that the first respondent is having the right to offer articles for the celestial bath of Gomati Amman. D.W. 2 has deposed that for the past 20 years, the first respondent used to bring articles for abisekam and alangaram for the Amman. His wordings is as follows: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 81. D.W. 3 has deposed that Gomathi Amman will be decorated with the articles offered by the first respondent/plaintiff. Offerings of other persons will not be used. His wordings are as follows : xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 82. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that after the demise of the appellant's father, the family members of the appellant continue to offer articles for the abisekam and alangaram for Gomathi Amman. The brother of the appellant in his evidence in Ex. X10 has stated that the entire articles for abisekam (celestial bath) and alangaram (decorations) are offered by the first respondent and not by the appellant. The appellant has also admitted in his evidence that his brother gave such a deposition before the Deputy Commissioner. Ex. A4 reveals that articles for abisekam (celestial bath) and alangaram (decorations) are offered by the appellant. The Deputy Commissioner had given a findings that the first respondent is not entitled for sponsoring for the Abisekam. The evidence of P.W. 1, D.W. 3 and Exs. X10 and A4 reveals that the right of offering articles for abisekam (celestial bath) and alangaram (decorations) is with the first respondent. Hence, it is decided that the findings of the Deputy Commissioner is not correct and that the first respondent is entitled to offer articles for the abisekam of Gomati Amman. 83. After the completion of the decoration the deity Gomati Amman, will be taken to Thapasu Mandapam on procession in a golden chariot. On the side of the first respondent, it is stated that the right of taking Gomati Amman in golden chariot is with the first respondent from time immemorial. The appellant is claiming the same right and he denied the right of the first respondent. On the side of the first respondent, it is stated that the right of taking Gomati Amman in golden chariot is with the first respondent from time immemorial. The appellant is claiming the same right and he denied the right of the first respondent. The appellant in his evidence has deposed that he is having the right to take Gomati Amman in golden chariot to the Mandapam and this Mandagapadi was done by his family members from 1944 onwards. 84. On the side of the first respondent, it is stated that in Ex. X3, counter statement filed by the second respondent in O.A. No. 7 of 1991, it is clearly stated that on the 11th day festival, the first respondent used to take the deity Gomati Amman to Tapasu Mandapam from time immemorial without any interruption. The wordings in Ex. X3 is as follows: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 85. D. W. 2 in his evidence has deposed that before and after 1944, the first respondent is taking Gomathi Amman on procession in the golden sapparam. His wordings are as follows: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 86. D.W. 3 has deposed that after completion of decoration, Gomathi Amman will be taken on procession in a golden sapparam by the plaintiff/first respondent. His words are as follows: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 87. In Ex. A10, it is stated that the first respondent is entitled to take the deity on procession in golden sapparam to the Tapasu Mandapam. The wordings in Ex. A10 is as follows: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx D.W. 2 and D.W. 3 have deposed that in Ex. A10, the plaintiff/first respondent was given a right to take Gomathi Amman in golden sapparam. 88. The Deputy Commissioner in his proceedings in O.A. No. 7 of 1991 has given a findings that the appellant is not entitled to claim the right to interfere in the right of the first respondent in performing abisekam (celestial bath) and alangaram (decorations) to Gomati Amman deity and to take Gomati Amman on procession in the golden sapparam. 89. On the side of the first respondent, it is stated that Tapasu Mandapam itself belong to the first respondent and the Tapasu Mandapam was constructed for the sole purpose of conducting this festival and it was the then Zamindar of Uthumalai who dedicated the Tapasu Mandapam to the first respondent temple. On the side of the first respondent, it is stated that documents, Exs. On the side of the first respondent, it is stated that documents, Exs. A26, A31, A34, A35, A37, A39, A41, A46, A53, A54, A55 contain the receipts for payment of taxes for Tapasu Mandapam and that Exs. A5 and A6 were the letters written by the plaintiff to Highway Department for permission to erect Pandal at the Tapasu Mandapam. 90. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the appellant is also having a mandapam in which two thousand devotees can be accommodated. From the evidence of D.W. 1, it is clear that the Mandapam specified by the appellant is only a marriage hall and it is not relevant to the temple festival. 91. D.W. 3 has deposed that the Thapasu Mandapam belongs to the Zamindar. Ex. X3 is the counter filed by the second respondent before the Deputy Commissioner in O.A. No. 7 of 1991. In Ex. X3, it is stated that Tapasu Mandapam belongs to the first respondent and from time immemorial without any interruption, the 11th day festival is conducted by the first respondent and that the temple has issued receipts in favour of the first respondent. The first respondent prepared pandal for Thapasu Katchi. The clear stand taken by the second defendant in the petition is that the Tapasu festival is to be performed by the first respondent and the rights of the first respondent is no way affected by the permission given to the first defendant's/appellant's father in the year 1944. The appellant has admitted in his written statement in paragraph no. 11 that after Gomathi Amman is taken to Thapasu Mandapam, the plaintiff is given Maalai, Parivattam, etc., indicating that he was the Mandagapadithar at the Thapasu Mandapam. 92. D.W. 2 has deposed that the right of the plaintiff to conduct the festival was never taken away by the second respondent and that the plaintiff is taking Gomathi Amman on procession in golden sapparam continuously and nobody else other than the plaintiff is taking Gomathi Amman on procession in golden sapparam. His wordings are as follows: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 93. The first respondent in his written statement in paragraph no. 2 has admitted that the second respondent temple came into existence during 1022 AD and the plaintiff acquired some rights in the Aadi Thapasu festival some centuries after its establishments. His wordings are as follows: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 93. The first respondent in his written statement in paragraph no. 2 has admitted that the second respondent temple came into existence during 1022 AD and the plaintiff acquired some rights in the Aadi Thapasu festival some centuries after its establishments. The admission of the plaintiff clearly reveals that the plaintiff and his predecessors were performing the rituals for centuries together. 94. From the above discussion, it is clear that the right of the plaintiff/first respondent was never taken away by Ex. B1. There are difference between Ex. B1 and Ex. A17 and there is no official seal in the documents. The locus standi of the Superintendent to issue such an order is not proved by the appellant. Ex. B1 never cancelled the right, of the first respondent. Ex. B1 is given in the name of an particular individual. Ex. B1 is not an official proceedings and no hereditary right can be claimed under Ex. B1. The receipts filed by the appellant are in the name of Sankaranarayanan and brothers but no such right is conferred to A.V.R.M.V. Sankaranarayanan and his brothers in Ex. B1. 95. Ex. B1 gave permission to Velayutha Mudaliar for making some offering to Swamy. After the death of Velayutha Mudaliar, no specific permission was given to A.V.R.M.V. Sankaranarayanan, the appellant. Ex. A10 is the decision a peace committee meeting. Ex. A10 also did not confer any hereditary right to the appellant. A permission to offer certain rituals regarding the Swamy (Male deity) alone was given in Ex. A10. The second respondent has admitted that the right of the appellant is not curtailed by Ex. B1. Ex. X3 clearly reveals that offering by the first respondent is being done from time immemorial without any interruption. Exs. A21 to A50, A53, A54 and A55, reveals that the first respondent is continuously performing the rituals even during the years 1942 to 1978 and he has the right of sponsoring for the 11th day Adi Thapasu festival regarding Gomathi Amman. D.W. 3 has admitted that that Adi Thapasu Mandapam itself belongs to the first respondent. Exs. A15 and A16 reveals that according to the local mythology, the first respondent temple deity, Naveenatha Krishnan is the elder brother of Gomati Amman. The first respondent is represented by the hereditary trustee who were the then Zamindars of Uthumalai. D.W. 3 has admitted that that Adi Thapasu Mandapam itself belongs to the first respondent. Exs. A15 and A16 reveals that according to the local mythology, the first respondent temple deity, Naveenatha Krishnan is the elder brother of Gomati Amman. The first respondent is represented by the hereditary trustee who were the then Zamindars of Uthumalai. Even in the written statement, this appellant has admitted that the plaintiff is performing rituals for Centuries and he is the mandagapadithar at the Thapasu Mandapam. 96. For the above reasons, it is decided that the first respondent is having the right to offer Alaippu Surul, to offer articles for abisekam and alangaram of Gomathi Amman and to take Gomathi Amman on procession in the golden sapparam on the 11th day festival and for receiving the honours from the temple, during the above said festival. Issue No. 4: 97. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the scope of Section 70 is not considered by the trial Court and that there is a customary right for the appellant to sponsor for the 11th day festival. But the first respondent claim a declaratory relief in Civil Court which is barred under Section 108 of the Tamilnadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act and that Section 108 of the Act provides a bar of civil suits in respect of administration or management of religious institutions, etc. 98. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the trial Court without considering the bar under Section 108 of the Tamilnadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act and 9 of Civil Procedure Code has given a declaratory relief to the first respondent. On the side of the first respondent, it is stated that the first respondent is performing the 11th day festival with regard to Gomati Amman from time immemorial. The right of the first respondent was never cancelled by the Superintendent. It is stated that the appeal lies against the order of the Deputy Commissioner before the Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments and that against the order of Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments, a suit can be filed before the Civil Court. The right of the first respondent was never cancelled by the Superintendent. It is stated that the appeal lies against the order of the Deputy Commissioner before the Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments and that against the order of Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments, a suit can be filed before the Civil Court. Section 69 of the Act provides for appeal before the Commissioner and Section 70 of the Act empowers the Court to modify or cancel such order, but it shall have no power to stay the order of the Commissioner pending the disposal of the suit. 99. It is stated that suit or appeal shall lie against any order passed under the several sections enumerated in Section 70(1). The Judgment passed by this Court in the case of C.A. Jayanath v. T.E. Srinivasan reported in 2002-4-L.W. 259 : 2003 (1) CTC 90 is cited. Section 70(1) of the Act reads as follows: "70(1) Any party aggrieved by an order passed by the Commissioner- (i) Under sub-section (1) or sub-Section (2) of Section 69, and relating to any of the matters specified in section 63, Section 64 or section 67; or (ii) under Section 63, section 64, or section 67 read with sub-section (1)(a), (2) or (4)(a) of section 22 or under Section 65; may, within ninety day from the date of receipt of such order by him, institute a suit in the Court against such order and the Court may modify or cancel such order, but it shall have no power to stay the order of the Commissioner pending the disposal of the suit." 100. The matter in issue is not the administration of the temple. Hence, the suit is not barred under Section 108 of the Tamilnadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act. A suit can be filed against the order of the Commissioner before the Civil Court under Section 70 of the Act. Moreover the civil Court is having power either to modify or to cancel the order of the Commissioner, Tamilnadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department. Section 9 of Civil Procedure Code is not applicable to this case. Hence, the contention of the appellant that civil Court is not having jurisdiction is not acceptable. Issue Nos. 5 and 6: 101. Moreover the civil Court is having power either to modify or to cancel the order of the Commissioner, Tamilnadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department. Section 9 of Civil Procedure Code is not applicable to this case. Hence, the contention of the appellant that civil Court is not having jurisdiction is not acceptable. Issue Nos. 5 and 6: 101. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the first respondent without initiating original proceedings on his own before the concerned authority has prayed for a declarationary relief in O.S. No. 22 of 2000 and that the Sub Court has declared the rights in favour of the first respondent when there is no such prayer. It is stated that the prayer of the appellant in the suit is to cancel the order of the Commissioner passed in A.S. No. 14 and 17 of 1993. Whereas the Sub Court has passed a decree conferring the exclusive right of Adi Thapasu of 11th day festival of Adi Thapasu to the plaintiff whereas the appellant and his family is entitled to Act as the Madagapidithar within the meaning of 6(19) and 63(e) of the Act. 102. Section 6(19) of Tamilnadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act, is relating to a specific endowment. There is no endowment created by the appellant or his ancestors (Once an endowment is created, it never revests to the donor). The appellant claim settlement of some property in favour of the temple. The appellant has deposed that the possession of that property is with the appellant himself. The copy of the gift deed was marked as Ex. B14. This settlement deed was executed for a charity Trust. One of the purpose of the trust was to sponsor for the abishekam (celestial bath) and alangaram (decoration) during the Adi Tapasu festival. It is stated that one male member of the family has to enjoy the property without making any encumbrance and to spend for the Adi Thapasu festival out of the income derived from the property. What is the income derived from the property, is not clearly stated. 103. On the side of the respondents, it is stated that there is no wordings in the settlement deed regarding the endowment for the 11th day of festival. What is the income derived from the property, is not clearly stated. 103. On the side of the respondents, it is stated that there is no wordings in the settlement deed regarding the endowment for the 11th day of festival. The evidence of P.W. 1 reveals that the property is in the possession of the appellant and not in the possession of the second respondent temple. The evidence of the appellant clearly reveals that there is no wordings in the settlement deed for conducting the 11th day festival regarding Gomathi Amman out of the income of the particular property. The report of the second respondent reveals that all the properties mentioned are already sold out without the permission of the second respondent and there are two appeals pending before this Court. Even if an endowment is created, it does not mean that the appellant is having some hereditary right on the basis of settlement of a property for an endowment. Hence no right can be conferred on the family of the appellant on the basis of Ex. B14 under Section 6(19) of the Act. 104. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the appellant is having the right to sponsor for the 11th day festival pertaining to deity Gomati Amman under Section 63(e) of the Act as per the custom and usage. Under Section 63 Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner shall have power to decide disputes regarding matters that falls under Section 63(e) of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act. 105. Section 63(e) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act 22 of 1959 reads as follows: "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." 106. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the right for the appellant family is an unbroken line of succession by the ancestors of the appellant. No document is filed on the side of the appellant from the year 1945 to 1964. The averment of unbroken line is not correct as the appellant has not filed any document to prove that his family was performing the above rituals during the year 1945 -1974. 107. No document is filed on the side of the appellant from the year 1945 to 1964. The averment of unbroken line is not correct as the appellant has not filed any document to prove that his family was performing the above rituals during the year 1945 -1974. 107. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the appellant perfected the right to perform specific endowment under Section 6(11) of the Act for having sponsored-the festival for more than 63 years. Section 6(11) of the Act is relating to the right of a hereditary trustee. The appellant was not declared as a hereditary trustee and that the appellant cannot claim the right of hereditary trustee under Ex. B1. The evidence of the brother of the appellant in Ex. X10 clearly reveals that the appellant and his family members does not have any hereditary right. More than that there is no document to prove that the appellant and his family members sponsored for the 11th day festival from the year 1945 to 1974. A Superintendent of a temple is not empowered to give a hereditary right to anybody. There is no such wordings in Ex. B1 denoting a hereditary right. 108. The appellant claims right of a hereditary trustee but he has failed to implead his brothers though the receipts filed by the appellant are in the name of A.V.R.M.V. Sankaranarayanan and brothers. Section 6 and 9 of the Act reveals that a person nominated by other trustees is not recognised. In Section 6(11) of the Act it is stated that "hereditary trustee" means the trustee of a religious institution, the succession to whose office devolves by hereditary right or is regulated by usage or specifically provided for by the founder, so long as such scheme of succession is in force. So far there is no such order in favour of the appellant declaring him as a hereditary trustee of any endowment. There was no wordings against the right of the first respondent in Ex. B1 and hence, there cannot be an adverse right and the right claimed under Ex. B1 cannot be perfected in any manner. 109. The appellant claim right on the basis of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in his proceedings R.C. No. 18292/64/17/12/1964. That document was marked as Ex. A3 in O.A. No. 7 of 1991. B1 and hence, there cannot be an adverse right and the right claimed under Ex. B1 cannot be perfected in any manner. 109. The appellant claim right on the basis of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in his proceedings R.C. No. 18292/64/17/12/1964. That document was marked as Ex. A3 in O.A. No. 7 of 1991. The document is a xerox copy and it is not filed before the trial Court. It is stated that the particular document was filed as Ex. A3 before the Deputy Commissioner in O.A. No. 7 of 1991. On the side of the first respondent, it is stated that the so called thittam (scheme) was approved by the Deputy Commissioner, Madurai who has no jurisdiction to decide the matter in this issue. The second respondent temple falls under the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner, Tirunelveli and that the scheme mentioned by the appellant is invalid. 110. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the second respondent in paragraph no. 9 of its written statement has stated that the celebration of Adi Thapasu was discontinued by the then Zamindars and that there was a permanent vacuum. Ex. A17 contain the Uthumalai estate entries for the year 1941, 1942, 1945, 1946, 1948, 1949, 1952. Ex. A18 is relating to 1954, 1959 to 1964. Ex. A21 is related to the year 1942. Exs. A22 to A25 are related to the years 1947 to 1950. Exs. A26 to A31 are related to the years 1951 to 1957. Exs. A32 to A55 are related to the year 1959 to 1978. Exs. A56, A57 are related to the year 1980 and 1981. Exs. A58 to A69 are related to the year 1984 to 1987. Hence, the theory of vacuum suggested by the appellant is not acceptable. The appellant has not produced any document from the year 1945 to 1974 regarding the performance of the 11th day of festival whereas the first respondent has produced documents continuously from 1941 to 1987. Hence, it is decided that the appellant has not proved an unbroken line of succession and it is decided that the first respondent has proved unbroken line of succession and there was no vacuum on the part of the first respondent. 111. The relief sought for by the appellant in Ex. Hence, it is decided that the appellant has not proved an unbroken line of succession and it is decided that the first respondent has proved unbroken line of succession and there was no vacuum on the part of the first respondent. 111. The relief sought for by the appellant in Ex. X1 is that the first respondent has nothing to do with the rituals and he has no right to interfere with the rights of the plaintiff and to declare and decide that by custom and usage, the appellant is entitled to perform Mandagapadi and it is also stated that the first respondent is not having any right to perform the rituals. Hence, the trial Court has to decide the rights of the first respondent. The right of the appellant and that of the first respondent is to be decided to decide whether the order of the Commissioner is to be cancelled or not. Hence, there is nothing wrong in the order passed by the trial Court in making an observation regarding the rights of the first respondent. 112. The prayer sought for by the appellant is to declare his rights as per customs and usage. It is seem that the Commissioner failed to discuss the documents filed by the first respondent and has dismissed the appeal filed by the first respondent without considering the documents. The Commissioner has not discussed anything as to why he is denying the rights of the first respondent. The Commissioner has failed to discuss about the evidence of P.W. 1. When P.W. 1 has clearly deposed that they do not have a hereditary right, the Commissioner gave a finding as if the family of the appellant is having some right. Ex. B1 was given in the name of a particular individual and not in the name of the family. The order of the Commissioner is wrong and the Civil Court is having the right to modify the order. It is very clear from the evidence of D.W. 2 and Exs. X3, X5 that the rights of the first respondent was never curtailed by Ex. B1. Even in Ex. B1 there is no wording regarding the cancellation of the rights of the first respondent. Ex. B1 does not confer a hereditary right for Velayutha Mudaliar. The appellant has not claimed any hereditary right in Ex. X1. X3, X5 that the rights of the first respondent was never curtailed by Ex. B1. Even in Ex. B1 there is no wording regarding the cancellation of the rights of the first respondent. Ex. B1 does not confer a hereditary right for Velayutha Mudaliar. The appellant has not claimed any hereditary right in Ex. X1. There is only a vague claim of custom and usage. A customary right cannot be claimed from a specific date on the basis of a particular document. Hence, the appellant cannot claim any right on the basis of the order in Ex. B1. Issue No. 3: 113. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the suit is barred by limitation as the suit was not filed with correct Court fee before the date of limitation. This contention of the appellant is not sustainable as the payment of Court fee was accepted by the trial Court and the suit was filed in time. 114. It is seen in Ex. B10 permission was given to the appellant to publish his name in the Sami sapparam and the first respondent was given permission to publish his name in the golden sapparam. One of the prayer of the appellant in O.A. No. 7 of 1991 is that he must be permitted to display his name in the golden sapparam and the Swami sapparam. 115. When a person contributing some amount is entitled to display his name persons who contribute their physical labour such as the priest who decorate the deity, the florist who decorate the sapparam, the seerpathams who bear the sapparam also may claim to display their names. Sapparams and vahanams belong to the temple and nobody is entitled to display their names. 116. In this contest, this Court is constraint to make the following observations, God is not in need of anything. Only we mortal are in the receiving end and not the God. Whatever we offer to a deity is only a way to show our gratitude and nothing else. Most of the hindu temples are badly in need of maintenance and cleaning. A wealthy person who is really interested in the religion can do either maintenance or cleaning works in the temples after getting necessary permission from the authorities concern. The basic principle of all religions is to demolish our egos. Most of the hindu temples are badly in need of maintenance and cleaning. A wealthy person who is really interested in the religion can do either maintenance or cleaning works in the temples after getting necessary permission from the authorities concern. The basic principle of all religions is to demolish our egos. Almost all the stories in Hindu Mythology personify our ego as the demon and the slaughtering of demons by the deities are the personification of slaughtering our egos. Writing the name of the sponsors on the temple sapparams or chariots is an ugly way of showing one's wealth and it is only a publicity stunt which is unwarranted in a temple festival. The motive for workshop must be to realize our humility and humbleness before the God. Hence, permitting the appellant and the first respondent to display their names in the sapparam and vahanams is unwarranted. Hence, this Court cancelled the particular right stated in Ex. A10 for both the parties. The second and third respondents are directed not to give permission to anybody to display their name in any temple sapparams or vahanams. 117. For the reasons stated above, it is decided that the order of the Commissioner in A.S. No. 14 of 1993 is to be cancelled and the order passed in A.P. No. 17 of 1993 and the order of the Deputy Commissioner in O.A. No. 7 of 1991 are to be modified by deciding that the first respondent is having the customary right of sponsoring for the abishekam (celestial bath) and by confirming the right of the first respondent to offer articles for the decoration of Gomathi Amman and by confirming the right of the first respondent to take Gomathi Amman on procession in the golden sapparam to the Thapasu Mandapam. 118. Both the appellant and the first respondent are prevented to display their names in any of the temple sapparam or vahanams (chariots) during the procession of the deities. The second and third respondents are directed not to permit anybody to display their names in any temple sapparams and vahanams. With the above direction, this appeal suit is dismissed confirming the order passed in O.S. No. 22 of 2000 dated 24.09.2001 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Sankarankovil. No Costs.