ORDER : 1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed as against the fair and decretal order dated 03.03.2017 made in I.A. No. 194 of 2016 in O.S. No. 200 of 2015 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Namakkal thereby dismissing the petition for rejection of plaint. 2. The petitioners are the defendants 1 to 8 and the respondents 1 to 3 are the plaintiffs in the suit. The respondents 1 to 3 filed a suit in O.S. No. 200 of 2015 for a declaration that the suit temple is a public temple and consequential injunction from interfering with the administration and also performing poojas on the suit temple by the officials of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department. They also sought for injunction as against the petitioners herein not to restrain the public from worshipping the God and also restraining them from doing administration and performing poojas as their own temple. Therefore, the petitioners filed a petition in I.A. No. 194 of 2016 for rejection of plaint on the ground that Section 63(a) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department shall alone have power to inquire into and to decide whether the suit temple is a public or a private temple. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under Section 108 of the Act. 3. The Court below dismissed the petition in I.A. No. 194 of 2016 for the reason that the petitioners herein not denied that the temple under the management and possession of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. Therefore, the suit temple is assumed that it is a Public temple. The right of the respondents 1 to 3 herein are civil in nature and as such the suit is very much maintainable. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the suit temple was constructed by donation collected from the people of NGGO Colony and respondents 1 to 3 herein have no right to claim to obstruct the performance of poojas and conducting festivals in the suit temple by the petitioners and people of NGGO Colony. At the same time, the respondents 1 to 3 cannot have any objection to manage and administer the suit temple by the petitioners herein. At the same time, the respondents 1 to 3 cannot have any objection to manage and administer the suit temple by the petitioners herein. He further submitted that admittedly, the respondents 1 to 3 filed suit for declaration declaring that the suit temple is a public temple and also framed decree of permanent injunction. It is not maintainable as per Section 63(a) of the Act, the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department shall alone have power to inquire into and to decide whether the suit temple is a public or a private temple. He further submitted that it is barred under Section 108 of the Act from filing suit to decide the issue of public or private temple. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgments of this Court in Inspector/Fit Person, H.R. and C.E. Arulmighu Sundaresa Gnaniar Koil, Dharapuram vs. Amirthammal, (2003) 1 MLJ 435 and P.K. Vasudevan Pillai vs. Manikandan Nair, (2011) 1 CTC 55 . 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that the suit temple is a public temple. Now, the respondents 1 to 3 are prevented by the petitioners to worship the suit temple. Admittedly, the suit temple is administered by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department and as such, it can be construed as a public temple and all are having equal rights to worship the suit temple. When there is a dispute in respect of worshipping the temple and performing poojas, this right is a civil in nature and it can be agitated before the Civil Court. Since the Civil Court only has got jurisdiction to try the issue in respect the civil rights. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly dismissed the petition for plaint and prayed for dismissal of the civil revision petition. 6. Heard Mr. R. Thirugnanam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. T. Dhanyakumar, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. S. Jaganathan, learned Government Advocate (CS) for the respondents 4 and 5 and perused the materials placed on record apart from the pleadings of the parties. 7. The respondents 1 to 3 filed a suit in O.S. No. 200 of 2015 for the following reliefs:- xxx xxx xxx xxx 8. According to the respondents 1 to 3/plaintiffs, the suit temple is administered and managed by the petitioners herein. 7. The respondents 1 to 3 filed a suit in O.S. No. 200 of 2015 for the following reliefs:- xxx xxx xxx xxx 8. According to the respondents 1 to 3/plaintiffs, the suit temple is administered and managed by the petitioners herein. Further, they stated that the temple was constructed by donation collected from public and therefore, the suit temple is a public temple. The issue before the Civil Court is that the suit temple is whether a public or a private temple. In this regard, it is relevant to extract the provisions under Section 63(a) of the Act, as follows:- "63. Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner] to decide certain disputes and matters: Subject to the rights of suit or appeal hereinafter provided [the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be] shall have power to inquire into and decide the following disputes and matters:- (a) whether an institution is a religious institution." 9. Accordingly, the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department shall alone have power to inquire into and to decide whether the suit temple is a public or private temple. 10. When it being so, Section 108 of the Act is clearly barred the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try the above issue. It is also relevant to extract the provisions under Section 108 of the Act, as follows:- "108. Bar of suits in respect of administration or management of religious institutions, etc. - No suit or other legal proceeding 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 this Act." 11. Accordingly, no suit can be filed in respect of the administration or management of a religious instruction or any other matter or dispute for determining or deciding for which provision is made under the Act. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment in Inspector/Fit Person, H.R. and C.E. Arulmighu Sundaresa Gnaniar Koil, Dharapuram vs. Amirthammal, (2003) 1 MLJ 435 in which the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has held as follows:- "11. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on the judgment of this Court in L.P.A. Nos. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment in Inspector/Fit Person, H.R. and C.E. Arulmighu Sundaresa Gnaniar Koil, Dharapuram vs. Amirthammal, (2003) 1 MLJ 435 in which the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has held as follows:- "11. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on the judgment of this Court in L.P.A. Nos. 103 of 1994 and 266 of 1995 in which on facts it was found that the suit property was a 'samadhi' and therefore, was held to be not a religious institution as defined under Section 6(18) of the H.R. & C.E. Act. In that case, the plaintiff in the suit had in fact applied to the Deputy Commissioner under Section 63(a) of the H.R. & C.E. Act for a declaration that a suit institution is only a 'samadhi' and not a religious institution. That petition was allowed. The Department's challenge to this was unsuccessful and in the Letters Patent Appeal too, it was held that it was only a ' samadhi'. Therefore, that judgment really does not help the case of the respondent. On the contrary, it only reinforces the appellant's case that the respondent ought to have approached the authorities first. 12. In the present case though there is a reference in the plaint to the suit property being a 'samadhi' the relief asked is for a declaration that the property is not a public temple. This is a dispute that falls under Section 63(a) of the H.R. & C.E. Act. It is not an incidental question that is asked to be decided in the suit, but the only question. Therefore, this dispute ought to have been adjudicated by the authority under the Act and as pointed out by the learned Special Government Pleader, the Act also provides for a detailed enquiry. 13. The suit must therefore, be dismissed as not maintainable since the question of maintainability is answered in favour of the appellant, we are not dealing with the merits of the case. It is open to the respondents to approach the authorities for a decision in this regard who shall consider this dispute afresh and decide the same in accordance with law. The letters patent appeal is therefore, allowed and the suit is dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed." 12. It is open to the respondents to approach the authorities for a decision in this regard who shall consider this dispute afresh and decide the same in accordance with law. The letters patent appeal is therefore, allowed and the suit is dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed." 12. He also relied on the judgment in P.K. Vasudevan Pillai vs. Manikandan Nair, (2011) 1 CTC 55 , in which the learned Single Judge of this Court has held as follows:- "26. A reading of the above provision shows that a suit or other legal proceeding, in respect of the administration or management of a religious institution or any other matter or dispute for which provision is made under the Act, is barred. Therefore, we have see (i) whether the dispute on hand is one relating to the administration or management of a religious institution or (ii) whether the dispute on hand is one for the determination of which, a provision is made under the Act. 28. Therefore, to invoke the bar under Section 108 of the Act, the institution whose right of administration or management is in question, should be a religious institution within the meaning of Section 6(18) and/or a temple within the meaning of Section 6 (20). We are not concerned here, with the other religious institutions such as math or specific endowment. Since the definition of the expression "temple" under Section 6(20), means only a place of public religious worship, a private temple may not come within its purview. 29. But as pointed out earlier, Section 108 has two limbs. The first relates to the administration or management of a religious institution. The second relates to any other matter or dispute, for the determination of which, a provision is made in the Act. The first limb is not attracted in this case since the very question that arises for consideration is whether the temple is a public or a private one and whether it will fall within the definition of the expression "temple" under Section 6(20). 31. Therefore, Section 63 of the Act, empowers the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, to inquire into and decide the dispute whether an institution is a religious institution. 31. Therefore, Section 63 of the Act, empowers the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, to inquire into and decide the dispute whether an institution is a religious institution. In other words, he is empowered to decide whether an institution is a math or temple or specific endowment, so as to fall within the definition of the expression "religious institution" under Section 6(18). Consequently, he is entitled to decide whether it is a temple within the meaning of Section 6(20). 32. Therefore, it appears, prima facie, that the question taken up by both the Courts below, as to whether it is a public or a private temple, is a question which could be decided by the Joint/Deputy Commissioner under Section 63(a) of the Act. Once it is found that the Joint/Deputy Commissioner is empowered to decide the question whether a temple is a private or public temple, then the second limb of Section 108 gets attracted. In other words, a provision is made under Section 63 (a) of the Act, for deciding the question whether a temple is a public or a private temple. Consequently, the bar under Section 108 appears to get attracted. 43. In Inspector/Fit Person, HR&CE, Arulmighu Sundaresa Gnaniar Koil, Dharapuram vs. Amirthammal, 2003 (1) MLJ 435 , a Division Bench of R. Jayasimha Babu and Mrs. Prabha Sridevan, J.J. referred to the two decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Madras vs. Kunnakudi Melamatam alias Annathana Matam, AIR 1965 SC 1570 and Sri Vedagiri Lakshmi Narasimha Swami vs. Induru Pattabhirami Reddi, AIR 1967 SC 78. After pointing out that there was no conflict of views between the decisions in Kunnakudi Melamatam and Sri Vedagiri Lakshmi Narasimha Swami, the Division Bench held that a suit for a declaration that the property is not a public temple, would fall under Section 63(a) and that it was not an incidental question and that therefore, the dispute should be adjudicated only by the competent authority in the first instance. 45. Therefore, it cannot be said that the question whether it is a public or a private temple arose merely incidentally to the main issues involved in the suit. The main issue that arose in the suit itself was whether it was a public or a private temple. 45. Therefore, it cannot be said that the question whether it is a public or a private temple arose merely incidentally to the main issues involved in the suit. The main issue that arose in the suit itself was whether it was a public or a private temple. The question whether the temple is a private or a public one, did not arise as an issue ancillary to any main issue. The case pleaded by the plaintiffs and the reliefs sought for by them, depended entirely upon the answer to the question whether it was a public or a private temple. Such a question which constituted the very life line of the case, cannot be said to be an incidental or ancillary issue." 13. In the above judgments, this Court held that the main issue arose in the suit itself is whether the suit temple is a public or a private temple. The question whether the temple is a private or a public one, did not arise as an issue ancillary to any main issue. The case pleaded by the plaintiffs and the reliefs sought for by them, depended entirely upon the answer to the question whether it was a public or a private temple. Such a question which constituted the very life line of the case, cannot be said to be an incidental or ancillary issue. Therefore, it would fall under Section 63(a) of the Act and that it was not an incidental question and therefore, the dispute should be adjudicated only by the competent authority. 14. In the case on hand, the prayer in the suit is for a declaration declaring that the suit temple is a public temple. When the main issue in the suit itself is whether it is a public or a private temple. Therefore, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the issue. As stated supra, under Section 63(a) of the Act, the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department is empowered to inquire into and decide the dispute whether an institution is a religious institution or not and whether the temple is within the meaning of Section 6(20) of the Act. 15. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted. 15. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted. In fact, the order passed by the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department is appealable one under Section 69 of the Act before the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. The order passed by the Commissioner is appealable one under Section 70 of the Act before the Civil Court. Therefore, the Civil Court has got jurisdiction only under Section 70 of the Act as against the order passed the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. 16. In view of the above discussion, the Trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the issue raised by the respondents 1 to 3 herein and the suit itself is not maintainable. Accordingly, the order dated 03.03.2017 made in I.A. No. 194 of 2016 in O.S. No. 200 of 2015 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Namakkal, is set aside. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. However, the respondents 1 to 3 are at liberty to approach the concerned authority under Section 63(a) of the Act in the manner known to law. No Costs. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.