JUDGMENT : A. The Appeal Suit : 1. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2003 in O.S.No.13 of 1988 decreeing the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff to declare the plaintiff as the hereditary trustee of Arulmigu Soletty Lakshmana Chetty Charities, attached to Arulmigu Adikesava Perumal and Arulmigu Koorathazhwar Temples, Kooram Village, Kancheepuram Taluk, Chengelpattu District, this appeal suit is laid before this Court. B. The Case of the Plaintiff : 2. The case of the plaintiff was that, originally by a registered deed dated 17.12.1914, termed as Settlement Deed, one Laxmana Chetty endowed the A and B Schedule properties for the purpose of certain specific endowments in the Arulmigu Adikesava Perumal and Arulmigu Koorathalwar Temple, Kooram Village, Kancheepuram Taluk, Chengelpattu District, more specifically for the purpose of -thathi arathanai- and -thiru nakshatra- festivals. As per the settlement deed, the donor was a trustee and along with him, he specifically nominated twelve other persons as trustees and directed that, the trustees should periodically meet and carry out the endowments. He also mentioned that, if any trustee is not willing to accept, replacements should be made. It is also further mentioned in the deed that, after the donor, the wife shall continue to perform the functions. After making such endowments, the donor died in the year 1915 and thereafter the endowments were duly carried on by his wife namely, Mangamma and she died in the year 1937. Before her death, she executed a Will dated 27.05.1935, wherein, she nominated the original plaintiff – her adopted son, as successor of the Trust to perform the endowments. Thereafter, her adopted son/the plaintiff was performing the said endowments. 2.1 While so, when he approached the Deputy Commissioner, by way of O.A.No.25 of 1980 under Section 63(b) of the Tamil Nadu HR & CE Act, 1959 with the prayer to declare him as hereditary trustee of the said endowment, the same was rejected on the ground that, the founder has ordained thirteen prominent persons belonging to various communities and, therefore, his wife could not have constituted him as the trustee and rejected the claim of the petitioner and directed the concerned authorities to take steps to appoint the Executive Officer and Trustees and dismissed the petition. 2.2 Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred by the appellant herein and the said appeal also having been dismissed vide order dated 30.10.1987, this suit is filed inter-alia praying to set aside the said order and also to declare the plaintiff as the Trustee. 2.3 Pending suit, original plaintiff had died and he in turn had constituted his grandson N.D.Arulmigudhar to act as hereditary trustee in respect of the said endowment and as such the said Mr.N.D.Arulmigudhar has been brought on record as the plaintiff. C. The Case of the Defendant : 3. The suit is resisted by the appellant by stating that, the terms of the settlement deed dated 17.12.1914 alone would prevail and as per the same, the thirteen members of the Trust should manage the endowment. When the said thirteen persons have not been functioning, the authorities under the HR&CE Act have every right to appoint trustees to the endowment under the provisions of the HR & CE Act. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff that the suit properties are yielding only Rs.4,000/- per annum as income is also denied and it is stated that the said properties would fetch the income not less than a sum of Rs.15,000/- per annum. The conclusion arrived at by the Deputy Commissioner as well as by the Commissioner is proper and valid and hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit. D. The Issues & The Trial : 4. On the said pleadings, the trial Court framed the following three issues:- (i) Whether the plaintiff is hereditary trustee of Arulmigu Soletty Lakshmana Chetty Charities Attached to Arumigu Adikesava Perumal and Arulmigu Koorathazhwar Temple, Kooram Village, Kancheepuram Taluk, Chengelpattu District? (ii) Whether the order dated 30.07.1987 passed in A.P.No.3 of 1982 is liable to be set aside? (iii) To what relief(s)? 4.1 On the above said issues, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and one Damodaran as PW2 and one K.V.Sampath as PW3. Exs. A1 to A50 were also marked on behalf of the plaintiff. On behalf of the defendants, one Sethuraman was examined as DW1 and Ex.B1 was also marked on behalf of the defendants. E. The findings of the Trial Court : 5. Exs. A1 to A50 were also marked on behalf of the plaintiff. On behalf of the defendants, one Sethuraman was examined as DW1 and Ex.B1 was also marked on behalf of the defendants. E. The findings of the Trial Court : 5. Thereafter, the trial Court proceeded to consider the case of the parties and by judgment dated 30.09.2003, held that, both the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner did not carefully consider the deed of settlement (Trust) and the intention of the donor and found that the purpose of forming of the Trust was that the member of the family should continue to perform the kattalais and that it should be duly supervised and managed periodically by the Board of Trustees. In that view of the matter, the trial Court held that, when there is no express provision under the original Deed of Trust and when he has nominated his wife as the Trustee after him, then the nomination by the wife after her lifetime through the Will has to be taken into account and, therefore, declared the plaintiff as the trustee and set aside the order of the Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. Aggrieved by the said findings, the Department has filed the present appeal suit. F. The Submissions : 6. Heard Mr.M.Bindran, learned Additional Government Pleader (HR&CE) for the appellant and Ms. Reheboth Niranjani, learned counsel for the respondent. 6.1 Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that, it is only the registered deed of settlement – Trust alone which will guide the manner in which the endowment properties have to be administered and when the donor has adopted the method for performing the kattalais and dedicated the property, the same has to be strictly adhered to. Learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that, the wife of the donor cannot nominate the original plaintiff by way of the Will and the same need not be taken into account, as the scheme for the management of the endowment is very much contained in Ex.A49 deed itself. Therefore, he would submit that, both the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner have taken into account the recitals of the same and dis-allowed the claim for hereditary trusteeship and, therefore, the trial Court ought not to have interfered in the same. Therefore, he would submit that, both the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner have taken into account the recitals of the same and dis-allowed the claim for hereditary trusteeship and, therefore, the trial Court ought not to have interfered in the same. When the endowment has to be administered by the board of trustees, the respondent/plaintiff cannot claim that he alone will manage the endowment as the hereditary trustee. 6.2 Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent taking this Court through the copy of the deed would contend that, on a perusal of the settlement deed, it would be clear that, it was intended to be a kattalai performed by the family and to be overseen by the trustees. When the donor has nominated himself as the trustee and have indicated that after his lifetime, his wife will be the trustee and when he does not specifically indicate as to who will fill in the said slot after the life time of the trustee, his wife Mangamma has rightly nominated her adopted son, the original plaintiff as the hereditary trustee. Therefore, without considering the purpose for which the properties were dedicated and without considering the main theme of Ex.A49, the Deputy Commissioner as well as the Commissioner, by considering one or two recitals independently, without cumulatively reading the document, had rejected the claim of the plaintiff. Learned counsel would further submit that, the trial Court, therefore had rightly went into the issue and after ascertaining the intention of the donor, purpose of endowments, and came to the conclusion as to its due performance and observance, has passed the impugned judgment and decree in appeal and, therefore, would pray that the same does not call for interference of this Court in this appeal suit. G. The Points for Consideration : 7. Upon consideration of rival submissions made on behalf of both the sides and perusing the material records of the case, the following issues are arising for consideration:- (i) Whether the claim of the respondent/plaintiff that he should be appointed as the hereditary trustee for the endowment namely Arulmigu Soletty Lakshmana Chetty Charities attached to Arulmigu Adikesava Perumal and Arulmigu Koorathazhwar Temple, Kooram Village, Kancheepuram Taluk, Chengelpattu District is right? (ii) To what relief(s) the parties are entitled to? H. On Point Nos. (ii) To what relief(s) the parties are entitled to? H. On Point Nos. (i) & (ii) : 7.1 Ex.A49 – Settlement Deed dated 17.12.1914 is the document by which the properties were donated for the endowment by the grandfather of the plaintiff, namely Soletty Lakshmana Chetty @ Lakshmana Ramanuja Dasan. The purpose for which the endowment is created is mentioned clearly in the deed which is as under:- 7.2 Similarly, to undertake and manage the endowments, he declared himself as the trustee and has nominated twelve other persons as the trustees. It is further mentioned that, the activities of the endowment should be supervised and carried out by periodical meeting of the trustees and in that minimum number of five trustees should be the quorum to give directions. If the trustees are not willing and fail to perform their duties, for a period of more than three months, the trustees of the temples can nominate the trustees. If the trustees of the temple fail to nominate within one month, the devotees of the temple, namely, can hold the meeting and by majority, nominate the trustees. If the endowments are not carried out properly then through Court, appropriate Scheme can be framed. 7.3 As a matter of fact, repeatedly, in the Trust Deed, the qualification for the Trusteeshi is mentioned as As a matter of fact, the very same trust deed nominates, wife in his place, which is as follows:- 7.4 Thus, it can be seen that, the intention of the donor was to manage the kattalais by one member of the family along with the other trustees. Therefore, when the donor nominated himself and after his life time has nominated his wife and at that point of time, since there was no children, did not say anything further about the trusteeship. After the death of the donor, his wife Mangamma has posthumously adopted the plaintiff as her son and when the said Mangamma has nominated the plaintiff as the trustee, after her, in her place to continue the kattalai, no exception can be taken for the finding of the Trial Court in approving the same. As a matter of fact, on a close reading of the entire settlement/donation deed, it would be clear that, the donor family will have one trustee as a Member and the rest will be from among the devotees and the prominent members of the communities. As a matter of fact, on a close reading of the entire settlement/donation deed, it would be clear that, the donor family will have one trustee as a Member and the rest will be from among the devotees and the prominent members of the communities. In that view of the matter, no exception can be taken for the decision of the Trial Court in setting aside the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner and allowing the suit filed by the plaintiff. However, at the same time, the Trial Court erred in holding that, so long as the kattalais are performed, the hereditary trustee alone can manage. The same is not in tune with the original dedication/intention of the donor. The purpose of dedication, the manner of administration and the procedure laid down by the donor should be implemented to the extent possible. Therefore, the Trial Court while allowing the prayer for hereditary trusteeship in respect of plaintiff, ought to have seen that, as per the original Scheme of the things contained in Ex.A49, there should be thirteen trustees or at least minimum of five trustees to manage/oversee the endowments. In that view of the matter, I answer the issue no. (i) that, the plaintiff is entitled to be declared as hereditary trustee of Arulmigu Soletty Lakshmana Chetty Charities Attached to Aathikesava Perumal Arulmigu Koorathalwar Temple, Kooram Village, Kancheepuram Taluk, Chengelpattu District but, however, to the extent no provision has been made by the Trial Court for appointment of other trustees in accordance with law, the trial Court-s finding cannot be sustained. As rightly contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader, the appellant is entitled to nominate the other trustees in accordance with the original settlement deed, with or without such modifications in accordance with provisions of the Tamil Nadu HR & CE Act, 1959. Accordingly, I answer the questions. I. The Result : 8. In the result, the following order is passed:- (i) A.S.No.1093 of 2004 is partly allowed. Accordingly, I answer the questions. I. The Result : 8. In the result, the following order is passed:- (i) A.S.No.1093 of 2004 is partly allowed. (ii)The judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 30.09.2003 in O.S.No.13/1988 is confirmed in as much as it declares the plaintiff as the hereditary/family member of the trustee of Arulmigu Soletty Lakshmana Chetty Charities Attached to Aathikesava Perumal Arulmigu Koorathalwar Temple, Kooram Village, Kancheepuram Taluk, Chengelpattu District; (iii) It will also be open for the appellant to take steps in accordance with law to nominate such number of other trustees to constitute the Board of Trustees along with the plaintiff/ hereditary trustee so as to manage and administer the endowments. (iii) There shall be no order as to costs.