JUDGMENT : (PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.84 of 2003 dated 23.04.2004 on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Tiruneveli reserving the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.546 of 2001 dated 17.06.2003 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli.) The defendant in O.S.No.546 of 2001 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, having suffered a decree for declaration and permanent injunction at the hands of the lower Appellate Court in A.S.No.84 of 2003, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli, has come up with this Second Appeal. 2. The suit was laid by the plaintiff/respondent contending that the plaintiff Temple is in his management as its Hereditary Trustee. It was also claimed that the defendant, which is a Society, is attempting to interfere with his functioning as Hereditary Trustee and it is attempting to take over the management of the said Temple. Claiming that the defendant has no right to interfere with the management of the Temple, the suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking the reliefs of declaration that the plaintiff Temple is in the management of Thiagarajan as its Hereditary Trustee and consequential injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the said management. 3. The suit was resisted by the defendant contending that the suit itself is not maintainable since it is barred under Section 108 of the Tamilnadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It was further contended that neither Thiagarajan nor his predecessors were the Hereditary Trustees of the suit Temple. The defendant would claim that the temple was always being managed by the people belonging to the Adhi Diravidar Community living in 4 streets of Pettai in Tirunelveli. These residents had formed themselves as registered a Society and the said Society has been managing the affairs of the Temple. It is claimed that one Madasamy, father of Thiagarajan, who claims to be the present Trustee, was in fact nominated by the residents as their representative. When the defendant was duly registered as a society and a management committee was formed, which required the said Thiyagarajan to make way, he refused and he has come forward with the suit. 4. It is claimed that one Madasamy, father of Thiagarajan, who claims to be the present Trustee, was in fact nominated by the residents as their representative. When the defendant was duly registered as a society and a management committee was formed, which required the said Thiyagarajan to make way, he refused and he has come forward with the suit. 4. The learned trial Judge concluded that the suit is not maintainable and the said Thiyagarajan has not established that he is in management of the suit Temple and on the said finding, the trial court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred an appeal in A.S.No.84 of 2003. The lower Appellate Court however concluded that the plaintiff Temple has been in the management of Thiyagarajan and the prayer sought for in the suit is not one for declaration that he is the Hereditary Trustee. On the aforesaid finding, the lower Appellate Court concluded that the suit as framed is maintainable and also granted the reliefs of declaration and injunction. Aggrieved, the defendant has come up with this Second Appeal. 5. While admitting the Second Appeal, the following question of law has been framed by this Court: “Whether the lower Appellate Court was right in granting declaration for the plaintiff as trustee of the suit Temple on the basis that he is a hereditary trustee in view of the bar under Section 108 of the Act?” 6. I have heard Mr.S.Kumar, learned counsel, appearing for Mr.H.Arumugam, learned counsel for the appellant on record and Mr.M.V.Venkataseshan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 7. Mr.S.Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would draw my attention to the pleadings of the plaintiff and contend that the suit is one for declaration of his hereditary right. According to Mr.Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the prayer has been so couched to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of the civil court. The learned counsel took me through the pleadings particularly paragraph Nos. 3 and 4 of the plaint, which read as follows: OTHER LANGUAGE 8. Mr.S.Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the suit in effect is for a declaration that Thiyagarajan is the Hereditary Trustee of the suit Temple. The learned counsel took me through the pleadings particularly paragraph Nos. 3 and 4 of the plaint, which read as follows: OTHER LANGUAGE 8. Mr.S.Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the suit in effect is for a declaration that Thiyagarajan is the Hereditary Trustee of the suit Temple. The fact that the prayer is so worded as if declaration is sought for that the suit Temple is in management of Thiyagarajan as its Hereditary Trustee cannot take away the real character of the suit as one for declaration that Thiyagarajan is the Hereditary Trustee. Even in the cause title to the plaint, it is claimed that the suit Temple is represented by its Hereditary Trustee. Therefore, the essential dispute according to Mr.Kumar, learned counsel is as to the capacity in which Thiyagarajan is managing the suit Temple. 9. Contending contra, Mr.M.V.Venkataseshan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would submit that the respondent is not seeking declaration of his hereditary right. The respondent is only seeking declaration that the suit Temple is in his management as a Trustee. Therefore, the dispute will not fall within the scope of Section 63(b) of the Act. Once it is found that the dispute does not fall within the scope of Section 63(b) of the Act, the bar under Section 108 of the Act will not be attracted. 10. As an alternative contention, Mr.M.V.Venkataseshan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would submit that the civil court has jurisdiction to decide inter se the disputes between the parties as to who among them is the Hereditary Trustee. In support of his contention, Mr.M.V.Venkataseshan, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in A.Krishnaswami Raju Vs. Krishna Raja reported in Vol.74 LW 672 and the judgment of this Court in S.Rangayya Gounder (died) and others Vs. V.Karupap Nalekar and others reported in Vol.84 LW 137. 11. In both the judgments proposition of law stated is that if there is a inter se dispute between the parties and both of them are claiming to be the Hereditary Trustee, then the authorities constituted under the Act will not have jurisdiction to decide the said dispute. It is only for the civil court to decide the dispute. There is no doubt in this proposition. 12. It is only for the civil court to decide the dispute. There is no doubt in this proposition. 12. But in the case on hand, the dispute is not between two persons claiming to be the Hereditary Trustees. It is the plaintiff, who seeks declaration that he is in management of the Temple as its Hereditary Trustee. The prayer is an intelligent camouflage. In the body of the plaint, the plaintiff makes a specific claim that he is the Hereditary Trustee of the Temple concerned. In the short cause title as well as long cause title, he is shown as representing the Temple as its Hereditary Trustee. I do not think that a party can be allowed to avoid the bar created under Section 108 of the Act camouflaging the prayer and calling upon the court to decide as to whether he is the Hereditary Trustee or not. The lower Appellate Court has concluded that the suit is maintainable only on the ground that the plaintiff has not sought for a declaration that he is the Hereditary Trustee. I am afraid that such an approach cannot be accepted. The court has to look into the substance of the plaint and see what the real dispute is or the question that is to be decided by the court. It cannot be carried away by technicalities or the intelligent drafting of the plaint. Section 63 of the Act provides that the authorities constituted under the Act namely, the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be, shall have power to inquire into and to decide some disputes. One of the questions as referred to under Section 63 (b) of the Act is, 'Whether a Trustee holds or held office as a hereditary trustee'. It is therefore clear that the question as to whether a person holds office as Hereditary Trustee or not is exclusive within the domain of the authorities constituted under the Act. 13. One of the questions as referred to under Section 63 (b) of the Act is, 'Whether a Trustee holds or held office as a hereditary trustee'. It is therefore clear that the question as to whether a person holds office as Hereditary Trustee or not is exclusive within the domain of the authorities constituted under the Act. 13. It will be useful to extract Section 108 of the Act, which reads as follows: 'Bar of suits in respect of administration or management of religious institutions, etc.-- No suit or other legal proceedings in respect of the administration or management of a religious institution or any other matter or dispute for determining or deciding which provision is made in this Act shall be instituted in any Court of Law, except under, and in conformity with the provisions of the Act'. 14. A reading of Section 108 of the Act would show that if a provision has been made under the Act for resolution of a dispute or for determination or deciding a question, a suit with regard to such question or dispute is barred. Therefore, suit for declaration that a person is Hereditary Trustee or he is in management of the Temple as its Hereditary Trust cannot be maintained before the Civil Court in view of the explicit bar enacted under Section 108 of the Act. 15. In view of the above, the question of law framed is answered in favour of the appellant. In view of the answer to the question of law, this Second Appeal has to be necessarily allowed and the suit has to be dismissed as not maintainable before the civil court. It is however open to the respondent to approach the authorities and stake his claim regarding his right to be in management of the Temple as a Hereditary Trustee or otherwise. 16. In fine, this Second Appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.