JUDGMENT : The plaintiff is the appellant herein. 2. The plaintiff had filed O.S.No.29 of 1989 before the District Munisf Court, Kovilpatti for declaration and permanent injunction over 2 items of suit schedule properties. The suit was decreed with regard to the 1st item and dismissed with regard to the 2nd item by the trial Court. The defendants 1 to 3 filed A.S.No.294 of 1994 before the District Court, Tuticorin with regard to the decree granted in favour of the plaintiff for the 1st item. The plaintiff filed cross appeal, challenging the dismissal of the suit with regard to the 2nd item. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the defendants and dismissed the cross appeal filed by the plaintiff resulting in dismissal of the suit in entirety. As against the same, the present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff. 3. The plaintiff had contended that the suit schedule properties were originally gifted to the Pandarams who were trustees of Arupathu moovar Madam in Kalugumalai by Jamindar of Ettayapuram. According to the plaintiff one Veerappa Pandaram and others owned the properties as haqdars of the temple Madam. The plaintiff had further contended that the said gift was made to the Pandarams personally for doing Dharma and service in the Madam and the gift was never intended for the Mutt. The plaintiff had contended that the said trustee of Arupathu moovar Madam namely, Veerappa Pandaram and others suffered a decree in O.S.No.551 of 1904 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tuticorin. In execution of the decree, the schedule mentioned property was sold in Court auction in E.P.No.195 of 1923. The plaintiff's father Sennappa Reddiar and his brother Sundaram Reddiar jointly purchased the 1st schedule property and the sale was confirmed by the Court and sale certificate was issued on 10.11.1923. The plaintiff further contended that the brothers took delivery of the 1st schedule property and continued the service of Dharma by themselves and by engaging Managers for performing the services. The said Sundaram Reddiar had died issueless and the plaintiff's father Sennappa Reddiar continued in the exclusive possession and performed the services and Dharma. After the death of Sennappa Reddiar, the plaintiff became the owner of the schedule mentioned properties and continued to enjoy the same as exclusive holder. He further contended that he is doing the service and Dharma by himself. After the death of Sennappa Reddiar, the plaintiff became the owner of the schedule mentioned properties and continued to enjoy the same as exclusive holder. He further contended that he is doing the service and Dharma by himself. He further contended that the defendants 4 and 5 were interested in the management of schedule mentioned property at one point of time and by mistake their names have been wrongly entered in some of the records as though they are the haqdars of the schedule mentioned properties and the Mutt. The plaintiff further contended that he is entitled to hold the property as its title holder and the trustee of the Dharma and service attached to it. The plaintiff further contended that he is the owner of the property and trustee of the private trust (Katalai). According to the plaintiff, the defendants belonging to the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department are attempting to take over the management and appoint trustees for the scheduled mentioned properties. Hence, the present suit for declaration and permanent injunction. 4. The defendants filed a written statement contending that the suit schedule 1st item belongs to the Mutt mentioned in the 2nd item. According to the defendants, the 1st schedule property and the Mutt were declared to the Public Religious Institutions in O.S.No.324 of 1985 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti. The income from the 1st item of the property is being utilized for conducting Dharmam and the festivals of the Mutt. The defendants further contended that they have issued a notice on 10.01.1985 calling for applications for appointment of trustees. Hence, the plaintiff has no independent title or possession either over the 1st item or over the 2nd item of suit schedule properties. 5. The trial Court elaborately considered Exhibits A2 and A3 documents. Exhibit A2 is the sale certificate issued in favour of the plaintiff's father and his uncle on 10.11.1923. The trial Court came to a conclusion that the properties have been purchased by the plaintiff's father and his uncle in Court auction in their individual capacity and hence, as far as the 1st item of suit schedule property is concerned, the plaintiff is the owner of the property. 6. The trial Court also found that the 2nd schedule property is a Mutt after careful consideration of the oral evidence on either side. 6. The trial Court also found that the 2nd schedule property is a Mutt after careful consideration of the oral evidence on either side. The trial Court found that the suit 2nd item Mutt is a Hindu Religious Institution and hence, the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department is entitled to interfere in the administration of the said 2nd item Mutt. The trial Court also considered Exhibits B1 to B7 and arrived at a finding that the Government authorities have been exercising their jurisdiction over the suit Mutt and the revenue records stand in the name of the Mutt. Based upon the said findings, the trial Court decreed the suit with regard to the 1st item and dismissed the suit with regard to the 2nd item. 7. The First Appellate Court after the perusal of Exhibit A2 sale certificate, came to the conclusion that the suit schedule properties have been gifted by Jamindar of Ettayapuram in favour of Veerappa Pandaram and others. The said Veerappa Pandaram and others were managing the 1st item only as haqdars of the suit 2nd item Mutt. Hence, what was auctioned under Exhibit A2 is only the haqdar right of Veerappa Pandaram. The First Appellate Court arrived at a finding that the father and the uncle of the plaintiff have purchased only the haqdar right under Exhibit A2 and they are in management and administration of the 1st item of the suit schedule properties only as the haqdars of the Mutt and not in their individual capacity. While considering the cross appeal, the First Appellate Court found that the decree passed in O.S.No.324 of 1985 would be binding upon the plaintiff and the present suit is barred by res judicata. The First Appellate Court on perusing the deposition of P.W.1 arrived at a conclusion that Annadhanam was carried out by the Mutt during Vaikasi Visakam and Panguni Uthiram festival held at the Subramaniyaswamy temple at Kalugumalai. Hence, the Annadhanam is associated with the religious festivals of the temple at Kalugumalai. The 1st item could only be considered as religious endowments for the performance of the Annadhanam during the temple festival. Being a religious endowments, the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department has got right to appoint a trustee and administer the Mutt as well as the properties. The 1st item could only be considered as religious endowments for the performance of the Annadhanam during the temple festival. Being a religious endowments, the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department has got right to appoint a trustee and administer the Mutt as well as the properties. In view of the above said findings, the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the defendants and dismissed the cross appeal filed by the plaintiff. As against the same, the present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff. 8. The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law : “1. Whether the lower appellate Court has interpreted Exhibits A2 and A3 in a proper and perspective manner? 2. Whether the claim of the plaintiff is hit by the principles of res judica in as much as plaintiff is not a party to the suit O.S.No.324/85? 3. Whether the conclusion arrived at by both the Courts that item-2 of the suit property is a public madam simply because some of the devotees and well wishers fed up during the temple festivals, is sustainable?” 9. Mr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the First Appellate Court has mis-interpreted Exhibit A2 sale certificate and arrived at a wrong conclusion that the suit 1st item is not the absolute property of the plaintiff. He further contended that the plaintiff is not a party to O.S.No.324 of 1985 and hence, any judgment and decree passed in the said suit will not be binding upon the plaintiff. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that the Courts below have erroneously arrived at a conclusion that the suit 2nd item is a public Madam simply because some devotees are being fed during the temple festivals associated with Subramaniyaswamy temple at Kalugumalai. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that the suit 1st item is not burdened with any liability and no endowment is created over the suit 1st item in the performance of Anadhanam or any other mandatory service during the temple festival. The plaintiff and his fore-fathers have been performing the service voluntarily and not out of any mandate made under any document. The plaintiff and his fore-fathers have been performing the service voluntarily and not out of any mandate made under any document. He further contended that the suit schedule 1st item has been purchased by the plaintiff in his individual capacity and hence, the suit 1st item should always be considered to be the individual and separate property of the plaintiff conferring upon him absolute title over the said item. He further contended that the 2nd item Mutt also belongs to the plaintiff and the defendants have not established their right or title over the said 2nd item. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that they have produced Exhibit A4 account books to establish that their family members have spent on the construction of the Mutt. According to him, Exhibit A5 would establish that the fore-fathers of the plaintiff was directly reporting to Ettayapuram Samasthanam and they were not enjoying the suit 1st item as haqdars of the 2nd item Mutt. Hence, he prayed for allowing the second appeal. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that Exhibit B1 adangal and Exhibit B2 settlement register will clearly indicate that the suit 1st item belongs to the Mutt. The gift was made by Jamindar of Ettayapuram only in favour of the Mutt and the same was in possession of Veerapa Pandaram vagaira only in the capacity as haqdars. The learned counsel for the respondents further contended that Exhibits B3 to B5 were the notices issued by the department calling for applications for appointment of trustees to the 2nd item Mutt. He further contended that the 4th and 5th defendants while they were functioning as haqdars of the Mutt had filed O.S.No.324 of 1985 before the District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti for the relief of declaration that the suit Mutt and the properties belong to the Reddiyar community in Velayuthapuram Village of Kovilpatti Taluk and for an injunction restraining the Government and Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment trustees from interfering with the administration of the plaintiff in the capacity as a hereditary trustee. The said suit was dismissed holding that the suit Mutt is a public religious institution coming under the purview of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the present suit has been filed only to get over the findings made in O.S.No.324 of 1985. The said suit was dismissed holding that the suit Mutt is a public religious institution coming under the purview of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the present suit has been filed only to get over the findings made in O.S.No.324 of 1985. The learned counsel for the respondents further contended that the said suit was filed by the 4th and 5th defendants herein in the capacity as hereditary trustee of the present suit schedule properties and they were unsuccessful in their attempt. Now, the present suit has been filed claiming that the 1st item is the separate property of the plaintiff and the 2nd item Mutt is a denominational Mutt to be administered only by the family members of the plaintiff. Hence, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the present suit is not maintainable and the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court may be confirmed. 11. I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side. 12. It is an admitted fact that the suit 1st item was gifted by Jamindar of Ettayapuram in favour of one Veerapa Pandaram and others. Whether the gift was made as a service inam in the name of Veerapa Pandaram or the gift was made directly to the Mutt is the issue to be decided. The plaintiff in para 4 of the plaint has admitted that it was gifted to the Pandarams who were trustees' of Arupathu moovar Madam. In the said paragraph, the plaintiff has also admitted that Veerapa Pandaram and others owned the properties as haqdars of the temple Madam. Hence, this Court can safely come to a conclusion that the gift made by the Zamindar in favour of Veerapa Pandaram vagaira is not a service inam for the enjoyment of the individual, but the gift was directly made to the Arupathu moovar Madam at Kalugumalai. 13. According to the plaintiff, the trustees namely Veerapa Pandaram and others suffered a decree in O.S.No.551 of 2004 on the file of Tuticorin District Munsif Court. The plaintiff had further contended that in E.P.No. 195/23, the 1st item of suit schedule property was sold in Court auction and was purchased by the plaintiff's father Sennappa Reddiar and his brother Sundaram Reddiar. The plaintiff had further contended that in E.P.No. 195/23, the 1st item of suit schedule property was sold in Court auction and was purchased by the plaintiff's father Sennappa Reddiar and his brother Sundaram Reddiar. Hence according to the plaintiff, the property being purchased in the individual capacity by the plaintiff's father and his brother, the suit 1st item is the absolute property of the plaintiff's father. When the 1st item is the absolute property of the plaintiff's family, the issue of appointing trustees to manage the said properties as if it is the property of Mutt is not legally sustainable. The schedule mentioned property in Exhibit A2 will indicate that what was sold in the Court auction is the judgment debtor's haqdar right and the charities associated with it. Hence, it is clear that the subject matter of Court auction was the haqdar rights of Veerapa Pandaram and others over the present suit 1st item. What was purchased in Court auction by the plaintiff's father and his uncle is only the haqdar right over the 1st item and not an absolute right over the said property. The plaintiff in para 5 of the plaint has stated that after taking delivery of the 1st item his father and uncle continued to perform the service of Dharma. The plaintiff has further admitted that after the death of his father, he is continuing the service and Dharma by himself. If really, the plaintiffs father and uncle had purchased the suit schedule properties in their individual capacity, they would not have continued the services. 14. That apart, in para 7 of the plaint, the plaintiff has admitted that he is holding the property as its title holder and as the trustee of Dharma and services attached to it. In para 8 of the plaint, the plaintiff has admitted that he is the owner of the property and trustee of the private trust (Katalai). Hence, the pleadings in the plaint will clearly show that the right from the date of Exhibit A2, the ancestors of the plaintiff and the plaintiff have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit 1st item of the property only as haqdars of the property and not in their individual capacity. 15. The plaintiff was examined as P.W.1. Hence, the pleadings in the plaint will clearly show that the right from the date of Exhibit A2, the ancestors of the plaintiff and the plaintiff have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit 1st item of the property only as haqdars of the property and not in their individual capacity. 15. The plaintiff was examined as P.W.1. In his deposition, he has admitted that the income from the 1st item of the suit schedule is being utilized for the performance of Anadhanam during Vaikasi Visagam and Panguni Uthiram festival conducted in Subramaniyaswamy temple at Kalugumalai. The feeding of the poor is not done on other days but during the festival days associated with the temple. This clearly indicates that the suit 1st item is burdened with the endowments namely, a religious endowment for the performance of Anadhanam associated with the temple festivals of Subramaniyaswamy temple at Kalugumalai. 16. Section 6(17) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act reads as follows: “17. “religious endowment” or “endowment” means all property belonging to or given or endowed for the support of maths or temples, or given or endowed for the performance of any service or charity of a public nature connected therewith or of any other religious charity; and includes the institution concerned and also the premises thereof, but does not include gifts of property made as personal gifts to the archaka, service holder or other employee of a religious institution; Explanation.-(1) Any inam granted to an archaka, service holder or other employee of a religious institution for the performance of any service or charity in or connected with a religious institution shall not be deemed to be a personal gift to the archaka, service holder or employee but shall be deemed to be a religious endowment. Explanation.-(2) All property which belonged to, or was given or endowed for the support of a religious institution, or which was given or endowed for the performance of any service or charity of a public nature connected therewith or of any other religious charity shall be deemed to be a “religious endowment” or “endowment” within the meaning of this definition, notwithstanding that, before or after the date of the commencement of this Act, the religious institution has ceased to exist or ceased to be used as a place of religious worship or instruction or the service or charity has ceased to be performed: Provided that this Explanation shall not be deemed to apply in respect of any property which vested in any person before the 30th September 1951, by the operation of the law of limitation;” 17. A reading of the said definition will clearly show that the 1st item has been endowed for the performance of Anadhanam connected with the religious charity. The first explanation will clarify that any inam granted to Anadhanam or service holder or other employee of a religious institution for the performance of any service or charity connected with the institution shall not be deemed to a personal gift but, shall be deemed to be only a religious endowment. Hence, the contention of the plaintiff, that Ettayapuram Samasthanam had gifted the properties to Veerapa Pandaram vagaira for the performance of Anadhanam should be treated only as a personal gift is not legally sustainable. Being religious endowment, the defendants 1 to 3 are entitled to appoint trustees to manage the suit schedule properties. 18. The First Appellate Court has properly appreciated Exhibit A2 sale certificate and arrived at a conclusion, what has been purchased by the plaintiff's ancestors is only the haqdar right of the Arupathu moovar Madam and not an absolute right over the suit schedule properties. In O.S.No.32 of 1985, the District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti has arrived at a conclusion that the status of the Mutt is a public religious institution and it is not a private property of a particular community. The said suit was filed by the 4th defendant who was the huqdar of the Mutt at that point of time. The plaintiff claims to be the present trustee of the Mutt. The said suit was filed by the 4th defendant who was the huqdar of the Mutt at that point of time. The plaintiff claims to be the present trustee of the Mutt. Hence, the judgment rendered in O.S.No.324 of 1985 is binding upon the plaintiff and it would certainly operate as res judicata. The contention that it is a private trust has also be rejected in O.S.No.324 of 1985. The plaintiff had relied upon Exhibits A2 and A3 for contending that the suit 1st item is a private property, but no document has been filed on the side of the plaintiff to prove that the suit 2nd item is also their private property. The suit 2nd item is a Mutt which is admittedly administered by the trustees appointed by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. The plaintiff has just relied upon Exhibit A3 account books for the purpose of showing that they have participated in the construction of the Mutt. Exhibit A3 will clarify that the contributions were obtained from the general public for the construction and renovation of the Mutt. Hence, we can safely come to a conclusion that the 2nd item is a public religious institution and the plaintiff will not be entitled to seek a declaration of title or permanent injunction as against the authorities from the interference. Hence, all the substantial questions of law raised by the appellant are answered against the appellant. 19. In view of the above said discussion, there is no illegality or irregularity in the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court. Hence, the second appeal stands dismissed. No costs.