JUDGMENT (Common Prayer: Second Appeals filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 17.08.2016 and made in A.S.Nos.55 & 56 of 2015 on the file of the Sub Judge, Sathyamangalam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 26.02.2014 and made in OS.No.406 of 2010 & OS.No.155 of 2009 respectively, on the file of the District Munsif, Sathyamangalam. ) Common Judgment 1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in both the suits is the appellant before this Court. Second Appeal in S.A.No.72 of 2017 is arising out of suit for declaration that the suit temple is a private temple of Uppliappa Naicker Community and for injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the right of the appellant to administer the temple. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court and the findings of the trial Court were affirmed by the first Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the appellant has preferred the Second Appeal in S.A.No.72 of 2017. 2. Second Appeal in S.A.No.73 of 2017 is arising out of the suit for declaration that the respondents herein is not the hereditary trustee of suit temple and for a consequential injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the appellant's right to administer the temple. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court and findings of the trial Court were confirmed by the first Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings the appellant has come up with this Second Appeal. 3. These Second Appeals are admitted by this Court on the following substantial questions of law by order dated 31.01.2017: “1.Whether the Courts below committed an error of law in dismissing the suit when the fourth defendant in para 13 of his written statement had categorically admitted that the suit temple is a community temple? 2. Whether the Courts below committed an error of law in holding that the fourth defendant is a hereditary trustee in the absence of any proceedings appointing the fourth respondent as hereditary trustee either by the respondents 1 to 3 nor any Government order had been passed to that effect?” 4. When the Second Appeal was taken up for hearing, this Court posted a question to the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the maintainability of the suit prayer before the Civil Court in view of Section 63 (a) r/w 108 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. When the Second Appeal was taken up for hearing, this Court posted a question to the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the maintainability of the suit prayer before the Civil Court in view of Section 63 (a) r/w 108 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The learned counsel for the appellant advanced the arguments on this aspect. The issue regarding the maintainability of the Civil suit in respect of the declaration sought for in the two suits regarding the private nature of the temple and the hereditary trusteeship etc., are all the matters which have to be adjudicated before the statutory authorities namely, Joint Commissioner under Section 63(a) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. 5. In S.A.No.72 of 2017 the appellant seeks a declaration that the suit temple is a private temple belongs to a particular community. Whether the temple is a public temple or private one is a matter to be decided by the Joint Commissioner under Section 63(a) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The said position has been clearly laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Inspector/Fit person HR & CE., Arulmighu Sundaresa Gnaniar Koil Cholakadai Street Dharapuram Vs. Amirthammal and 3 others, reported in 2003 (1) CTC 484 . The relevant observation of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the above mentioned case as follows: “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 HR & CE 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 3 afresh and decide the same in accordance with law...” 6. It is open to the respondents to approach the authorities for a decision in this regard who shall consider this dispute 3 afresh and decide the same in accordance with law...” 6. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that the prayer sought for by the appellant in O.S.No.406 of 2010 is not maintainable before the Civil Court. It is for the appellant to move appropriate application before statutory authority under Section 63 (a) & (b) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. 7. In S.A.No.73 of 2017 the appellant herein seeks a declaration that the respondents are not hereditary trustee of the suit temple under Section 63 (b) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. If there is a dispute whether a person can hold the office as a hereditary trustee of the temple or not, the same shall be decided by the Joint Commissioner in an enquiry conducted under Section 63 (b) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The relevant provision of Section 63 (b) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act of appeal as reads thus: “63. [Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner] to decide certain disputes and matters:- “Subject to the rights of suit or appeal hereinafter provided, the Deputy Commissioner shall have the power to inquire into and decide the following disputes and matters; (b)...Whether a trustee holds or held office as a hereditary trustee.” 8. Therefore, the prayer sought for in OS.No.155 of 2009 that the respondents are not hereditary trustee of suit temple is also within the jurisdiction of the statutory authority constituted under the Act. Therefore, the present suit is barred by Section 63 (b) r/w 108 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. 9. In view of the above conclusion reached by this Court that the suit filed by the appellant before the Civil Court is not maintainable, the Second Appeals deserve dismissal with the liberty to the appellant to move the statutory authority. Therefore, the final conclusion reached by the Courts below in dismissing the suit need not be disturbed as this Court has come to the conclusion that the suit prayer is not maintainable. When the suit itself is not maintainable, this Court is not inclined to venture into answer the substantial questions of law framed on merits of the case. Therefore, the final conclusion reached by the Courts below in dismissing the suit need not be disturbed as this Court has come to the conclusion that the suit prayer is not maintainable. When the suit itself is not maintainable, this Court is not inclined to venture into answer the substantial questions of law framed on merits of the case. Any answer to the substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission on the merits of the case would affect the rights of the parties in the proceedings before the statutory authority. Therefore, I am refraining myself from answering the substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission and the Second Appeals are dismissed with liberty to move the statutory authority. 10. In view of the same, the Second Appeals in S.A.Nos.72 & 73 of 2017 are dismissed with the liberty to the appellant to move the appropriate authority under Section 63 (a) & (b) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. 11. With the above liberty, both the Second Appeals are dismissed. No costs.