JUDGMENT : DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant, who claims to be the Non-hereditary Priest of a Temple by name “Sree Mamanikkunnu Mahadevi Temple” (for short ‘the Temple’) which is arrayed as the third respondent herein. 2. According to the appellant, he was appointed as a “Santhi” (Priest) of the Temple in the year 1974 and that he continued in such position until the year 1987, when the incumbent “Chief Melsanthi” (Chief Priest) was suspended on account of certain alleged misconduct. He says that in the year 1987, members of the then Temple “Samithi” entered into an agreement with him and his cousin - Sri. Chandran Moosad, who is the first respondent herein, as per which, both of them were allowed to continue as “Santhis” of the Temple. 3. That said, the appellant claims to have a hereditary right of Priestship in the Temple on the allegation that he belongs to the “Mamanikkunnu Illam” which, according to him, is the owner of the Temple and alleges that the first and second respondents initiated proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department (for short ‘HR & CE Department’) by filing O.A. No. 23/2007 against the schedule of establishment of the Temple fixed by the said Authority, wherein they had been shown as a Non-hereditary Priests. The appellant explains that the said Original Application was filed by the first and second respondents solely on the plea that they were incorrectly shown as Non-hereditary Priests of the Temple in the schedule of establishment, but that there was no challenge against his position. 4. The appellant submits that the afore Original Application was dismissed, against which respondent 1 and 2 filed A.P. Nos. 11 and 13 of 2014; while he moved an appeal numbered as A.P. No. 12/2014, before the Commissioner, HR & CE Department, under the provisions of Section 61 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (for short ‘the HR & CE Act’). He says that the Commissioner heard both sides and passed an order dated 15.07.2015, declaring respondents 1 and 2 herein to be the Hereditary Priests of the Temple and negating his contention that he is entitled to be reckoned as a Non-hereditary Priest. He says that the Commissioner heard both sides and passed an order dated 15.07.2015, declaring respondents 1 and 2 herein to be the Hereditary Priests of the Temple and negating his contention that he is entitled to be reckoned as a Non-hereditary Priest. He says that he was, therefore, constrained to file O.P. No. 4/2017 before the Sub Court, Kannur, assailing the said order, which has now culminated in the order impugned in this appeal. 5. The appellant contends that the conclusions of the Sub Court, Kannur, affirming the findings of the Commissioner, HR & CE Department in O.P. No. 4/2017, are unsustainable on account of incorrect appreciation of facts and evidence; and thus prays that the same be set aside. 6. I have heard Sri. V. Ramkumar Nambiar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant; Smt. Prabha R. Menon, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent; Sri. Mohanakannan, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 7; Smt. K.A. Sanjeetha, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent; Sri. Bonny Benny, learned counsel for the 4th respondent and Sri. R. Lakshmi Narayanan, learned standing counsel for respondents 5 and 6. 7. Sri. V. Ramkumar Nambiar, learned counsel for the appellant, impelled two contentions. For the first, he asserts that his client is entitled to be declared as a Hereditary Priest of the Temple, since he belongs to the family which holds such rights and for the second, his client claims such right on the strength of the aforementioned agreement entered into by the Temple “Samithi” with the first respondent and his client in the year 1987, a copy of which has been marked on record as Ext.A3. 8. In response to the submissions of Sri. 8. In response to the submissions of Sri. V. Ramkumar Nambiar, Smt. Prabha R.Menon, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, submits that the evidence on record and the materials available would limpidly demonstrate that the hereditary rights of Priesthood of the Temple vest with her client's family, namely the Ooralikandy Illam and that the appellant, who is concededly the son of a daughter of the family, would not be entitled to any such right because the family follows the “Makathaya Law.” She says that the factum of the family following the “Makathaya Law” is expressly conceded to by the appellant, while he was examined as PW-1 and therefore, that his contentions built on the claim that he should be recognised as a Hereditary Priest cannot find legs to stand on. After saying so, Smt. Prabha R. Menon submitted that Ext.A3 agreement, which was entered in the year 1987, was not a registered one and was not intended to operate perpetually, but only for a short period of time, so as to get over the piquant position faced by the Temple at the time when its Chief Priest had been suspended. She says that it is amply clear from the said agreement that the appellant is not a Hereditary Priest and that only the 1st respondent and his uncle were recognised therein to be the Hereditary Priests of the Temple. She, therefore, prays that this appeal be dismissed, since the appellant cannot sustain either of his claims as voiced through his learned counsel, Sri. Ramkumar Nambiar. 9. Sri. Mohanakannan, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 7, adopts all the submissions of Smt. Prabha R. Menon; however, supplementing them by contending that the appellant cannot, in any manner, claim to be a Hereditary Priest of the Temple since he admits specifically that he belongs to the “Mamanikkunnu Illam” and not the “Ooralikandy Illam.” Sri. Mohanakannan submits that the evidence on record, as has been correctly assessed by the Commissioner of HR & CE Department and by the Sub Court, Kannur, would establish this beyond any doubt and therefore, that once the appellant stakes a primary claim as being a Hereditary Priest, his additional contention based on Ext.A3, which only states that he has been appointed as a Priest, is rendered antithetical to it and hence, may not be acceded to by this Court. He thus prays that this appeal be rejected and that the order of the Sub Court, Kannur and the order of the Commissioner, HR & CE Department be confirmed. 10. Smt. K.A. Sanjeetha and Sri. Bonny Benny, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4 respectively, did not support either of the sides, but submitted that the original right claimed by the “Ooralikandy Illam” on the basis of a “Marupatam Deed” executed by the erstwhile Trustee of the Temple in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant and respondents 1 and 2, Sri. Shankara Pidar, is not sustainable in law and that the present Trustee has, in fact, initiated action for having the same set aside. Smt. K.A. Sanjeetha argues that, therefore, neither of the parties can claim rights to be the Hereditary or Nonhereditary Priests of the Temple but in the same breath conceded, to a pointed question from me, that in the pleadings filed by her client before the Sub Court, Kannur and the Commissioner, HR & CE Department, no such contentions had been taken, however, adding that a separate appeal has been filed by her client before this Court against the order impugned herein - numbered as MFA No. 142/2018 - in which these assertions have been made. The learned counsel submits that, therefore, this Court may not recognise the rights of the appellant as a Hereditary or Non-hereditary Priest and that this appeal be dismissed. 11. Sri. R. Lakshmi Narayanan, learned standing counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board, appearing on behalf of respondents 5 and 6 submits that the order of the Commissioner of HR & CE Department impugned before the Sub Court, Kannur and assailed in this appeal does not suffer from any infirmity because the Deputy Commissioner had been originally approached by respondents 1 and 2 through O.A. No. 23/2007, under the provisions of Section 57E of the HR & CE Act, to resolve a dispute as to whether they should be construed to be the Hereditary Priests or Non-hereditary Priests. He says that the Deputy Commissioner dismissed the O.A. finding that respondents 1 and 2 are only entitled to be treated as Non-hereditary Priests, but which order was overturned by the Commissioner and by the Sub Court, Kannur. He says that the Deputy Commissioner dismissed the O.A. finding that respondents 1 and 2 are only entitled to be treated as Non-hereditary Priests, but which order was overturned by the Commissioner and by the Sub Court, Kannur. He says that there was no reason for the appellant to have, in fact, filed an appeal before the Commissioner against the said order of the Deputy Commissioner, since there was no adjudication therein regarding his rights but that since he chose to do so, nevertheless, the Commissioner had no other option but to assess his position also and to declare him as not entitled to be either Hereditary Priestship or Non-hereditary Priestship. He maintained that the Trial Court has correctly assessed the materials and evidence and has issued the impugned order, which, he prays, be granted imprimatur by this Court. 12. I have analysed the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties recorded as afore and have also gone through the materials and evidence available on record. 13. I notice that the Sub Court, Kannur, took Original Petition No. 4/2017 to trial and marked Exts.A1 to A12 on the side of the appellant; while Exts.B1 to B16 were marked on the side of respondents 1 and 2 herein. The Court also record the testimony of the appellant as PW-1 and that of the 1st respondent herein as RW-1. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Sub Court dismissed the Original Petition confirming the findings of the Commissioner, HR & CE Department in his order in A.P. Nos. 11, 12 and 13 of 2014 and it is this judgment which has been assailed by the appellant before this Court. 14. Before I venture forward, a brief look at the litigative history of this case will become first necessary. 15. The undisputed facts and pleadings on record show that the property in which the Temple is situated was granted under a ‘Marupatam’ of the year 1953, to the grandfather of the appellant and of respondents 1 and 2 - Sri. Shankara Pidar and that he continued to hold the same until his death in the year 1955. When Sri.Shankara Pidar died, as per the “Makathaya Law” the Priesthood of the Temple became heritable to his elder son, Sri.Narayanan, who became its Melsanthi (Chief Priest) and continued so until 1966 when he died. Subsequently, his brother, Sri. Shankara Pidar and that he continued to hold the same until his death in the year 1955. When Sri.Shankara Pidar died, as per the “Makathaya Law” the Priesthood of the Temple became heritable to his elder son, Sri.Narayanan, who became its Melsanthi (Chief Priest) and continued so until 1966 when he died. Subsequently, his brother, Sri. Krishnan, took over as the Melsanthi in the year 1966 and so functioned till 1999, when he also left for his celestial abode, consequent to which, the first respondent - being the elder son of the aforementioned Narayanan - took over as the Melsanthi from that year. It is also on record, and which is virtually uncontested, that in between, the appellant was appointed as ‘Santhi’ though not in a hereditary or non-hereditary position, as early as in the year 1974, while the first respondent- Sri. Chandran Moosad - was appointed in such position in the year 1981. It is also admitted that when the aforementioned Krishnan was continuing as the “Melsanthi” certain allegations arose against him, leading to his suspension, resultant to which, Ext.A3 agreement was entered into by certain members of the then Temple “Samithi” with the appellant and the 1st respondent herein, re-appointing the former as a Priest and recognising the 1st respondent and Sri. Krishnan alone to be entitled to Hereditary Priestship. 16. Subsequent to all this, the Temple was taken over by the HR & CE Department in the year 2006 and the Deputy Commissioner, invoking his powers under Section 58(1) of the HR & CE Act, framed a scheme for its management, a copy of which has been marked on record as Ext.A5, but in which there was no mention regarding the position of Priest or Melsanthi. It transpires, which is not disputed, that later, when the Schedule of Establishment was published by the competent Assistant Commissioner, based on the inputs given by the Executive Officer of the Temple, the first and second respondents were shown only as Non-hereditary Priests, even though they claim to be the hereditary ones. It is in such circumstances, as I have already seen above, that respondents 1 and 2 approached the Deputy Commissioner by filing O.A. No. 23/2007 and when it was dismissed, they filed independent appeals, as AP No. 11/2014 and AP No. 13/2014 respectively, while the appellant filed A.P. No. 12/2014. It is in such circumstances, as I have already seen above, that respondents 1 and 2 approached the Deputy Commissioner by filing O.A. No. 23/2007 and when it was dismissed, they filed independent appeals, as AP No. 11/2014 and AP No. 13/2014 respectively, while the appellant filed A.P. No. 12/2014. These three appeals were heard together by the Commissioner and through a common order, he allowed A.P. Nos. 11/2014 and 13/2014 filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein and partly allowed AP. No. 12/2014 filed by the appellant, allowing him to continue as a Priest but negating his contentions both on the ground that he is a Hereditary Priest or that he is entitled to be recognised as one under Ext.A3 agreement of the year 1987. Respondents 1 and 2, of course, accepted the judgment in A.P. Nos. 11/14 and 13/14, which obviously is in their favour but the appellant chose to challenge the common order of the Commissioner by filing O.P. No. 4/2017 before the Sub Court, Kannur, which has now culminated in the order impugned in this appeal. 17. In the backdrop of the afore narration, it is perspicuous that the appellant claims two reliefs, which, at the first glance, appear antipodal to each other. His first contention, as has already been noticed above, is that he is entitled to continue as a Hereditary Priest since he belongs to the “Mamanikkunnu Illam” which is the owner of the property. His second contention, of course, is that he is entitled to continue as a Priest on the strength of Ext.A3 agreement of the year 1987 and therefore, that the impugned order removing him from such position is without any legal or forensic support. 18. When I consider the afore contentions of the appellant, it is clear that his claim for being reckoned as a Hereditary Priest of the Temple is on an extremely weak wicket because, the evidence on record establishes, which is also virtually admitted, that the property on which the Temple is situated came into the possession and ownership of the “Ooralikandy Illam” through a ‘Marupattam Deed’ of the year 1953, a copy of which has been marked on record as Ext.B15. As per this document, Sri. As per this document, Sri. Shankara Pidar, who is the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant, as also that of respondents 1 and 2, took over as the “Melsanthi” (Chief Priest) and subsequent to his death, his sons and eventually the first respondent succeeded in the manner as I have already said above. These facts are not disputed and indubitably, therefore, the appellant cannot now project any contest against Ext.B15 ‘Marupatam Deed’ since, pertinently, the contention regarding his right as Hereditary Priest would also have to depend upon the same, because he traces common ancestry to Sri. Shankara Pidar. Moreover, when he was examined as PW-1, he expressly admitted that the “Ooralikandy Illam” follows “Makathaya Law” and therefore, it becomes irrefutable that his claim of being a Hereditary Priest stands totally enervated, since he admits, in the same breath, that he is the son of a daughter of Sri. Shankara Pidar. Of course, he tries to make a corollary predication that the Temple and its property belongs to the “Mamanikkunnu Illam” of which, he is a member - but absolutely no evidence has been led by him in support of these contentions; and in any event of the matter, it cannot be even countenanced in view of Ext.B15 document, which grants “Marupattam” rights in favour of “Ooralikandy Illam.” 19. That brings me to the second question as to whether the appellant can stake any right as being a Hereditary or Non-hereditary Priest on the strength of Ext.A3 agreement. As has been rightly found by the Commissioner of HR & CE Department and by the Sub Court, Kannur, Ext.A3 agreement is not a registered document, though the appellant contends so. Even a cursory glance through Ext.A3 would show that it is not a registered document and that it has been executed by some members of the then Temple “Samithi” and not by the Trustee of the Temple. As per Ext.A3, the appellant has been “re-appointed” as a Priest, along with the first respondent, because the then hereditary “Melsanthi” and Sri. Even a cursory glance through Ext.A3 would show that it is not a registered document and that it has been executed by some members of the then Temple “Samithi” and not by the Trustee of the Temple. As per Ext.A3, the appellant has been “re-appointed” as a Priest, along with the first respondent, because the then hereditary “Melsanthi” and Sri. Krishnan Moosad (who is the maternal uncle of the appellant), was suspended from service on account of certain alleged misconduct and it unambiguously declares that only the suspended “Melsanthi” and the first respondent are the Hereditary Priests of the Temple, thus rendering it beyond any doubt that even under the said agreement, the appellant was recognised, at the best, only as an employee under the “Samithi.” Therefore, even if the appellant takes refuge under Ext.A3 and even if it is assumed that the said document is valid in law, the contention that he should be treated as a Hereditary Priest under it cannot find support. 20. To exacerbate the hurdles for the appellant, the “Samithi” mentioned in Ext.A3 agreement is admittedly not a legally recognised or statutorily appointed entity and hence an agreement executed by its alleged members cannot bind anyone else. Further, it is a fact, which is conceded that the appellant was “reappointed” as a Priest by the “Samithi” since the word used in Ext.A3 is “punar niyamanam” (reappointment) and consequently, the appellant is bereft of any legally recognisable cause of action against the Malabar Devaswom Board or the Trustee of the Temple on the strength of the said agreement. Necessarily therefore, these contentions have to fail. 21. Before I conclude this judgment, I must further record that even though this Court has gone in some detail into the claim of the appellant as a Non-hereditary Priest, it appears to be redundant at this point of time because, admittedly, he is now over 65 years of age and hence even if this Court is to find in his favour, he cannot continue in office any further. The only benefit this Court can concede to the appellant is that the remuneration and emoluments he had received while he was functioning as the Priest of the Temple, till his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation of 65 years, are not recovered by the Malabar Devaswom Board, since Sri. The only benefit this Court can concede to the appellant is that the remuneration and emoluments he had received while he was functioning as the Priest of the Temple, till his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation of 65 years, are not recovered by the Malabar Devaswom Board, since Sri. R. Lakshmi Narayanan fairly submits that his client has no intention of doing so. 22. In the afore circumstances, I find no reason to entertain this appeal any further, it being without any merit and consequently, dismiss it; however, injuncting the Malabar Devaswom Board and the third respondent from recovering the salary, remuneration and emoluments already received by the appellant, while he was functioning as the Priest of the Temple till his superannuation. 23. In the nature of the peculiar factual scenerio afore seen, I choose to make no order as to costs and to direct the parties to suffer their respective costs.