JUDGMENT : S. SOUNTHAR, J. Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree made in A.S. No. 4 of 2005, dated 4.10.2005, on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin granting the relief B in the suit, and thereby partly allowing the judgment and decree made in O.S. No. 65 of 2003, dated 19.11.2004, on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Thiruchendur. 1. The third defendant in the suit is the appellant. The respondents 1 to 13 originally filed the suit seeking the following reliefs: (a) for declaration that they are the hereditory poojaris’ of Arulmughu Karkugvel Ayyanar Koil. (b) declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to remuneration attached to the office of the hereditory poojaris. (c) to cancel the proceedings of the second defendant Tahsildar, Thiruchendur in his proceedings in DTR.NO. 10 of 1976, dated 8.4.1991 and for costs. 2. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, respondents 1 to 13 preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 4 of 2005 on the file of Subordinate Court, Thoothukudi. The First Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal of the suit with regard to the suit prayer (a) and (c). However, the findings of the trial Court with regard to prayer (b) was reversed and the appeal was partly allowed granting the suit prayer (b) in favour of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the same, the third defendant has come by way of this Second Appeal. Pending appeal, some of the respondents i.e. respondents 1 to 3, 7,10,12 and 21 were recorded dead and their legal representatives were arrayed as respondents 17 to 33. 3. According to the respondents 1 to 13/plaintiffs, they are the hereditory poojaris of Karkugvel Ayyanar Temple and the same was founded by their forefathers. The administration of the temple was looked after by the plaintiffs. It was also claimed by the plaintiffs that the Settlement Patta issued under Act 30 of 1963 was granted in favour of the plaintiffs’ forefathers with a condition that they should continue to perform the service of Poojari. It was also claimed that the Plaintiffs have been enjoying the usufructs of the tamarind trees standing in the suit property in lieu of salary for their service as Poojari. It was also claimed that the Plaintiffs have been enjoying the usufructs of the tamarind trees standing in the suit property in lieu of salary for their service as Poojari. The third defendant in his order, dated 8.4.1991 cancelled the patta without notice to the plaintiffs and hence, the same was not binding on them. It was also claimed by the plaintiffs that they were entitled to have the share in the Archana tickets at the rate of 40 paise per one rupee and on these pleadings, they sought for decree as prayed for. 4. The third defendant filed a written statement and denied the averments in the plaint as if the plaintiffs have been performing pooja in the suit temple as hereditory poojaris. The allegation regarding issuance of settlement patta was also denied. The claim of the plaintiffs with regard to the share in Archana tickets and right to enjoy the usufructs of the tamarind trees were also denied by the third defendant. The third defendant also raised a plea that the suit for declaration of hereditory poojariship was not maintainable before the Civil Court. The defendant also contended that the Civil Court cannot entertain the other prayers for perquisites, share in the archana tickets, validity of the patta issued by the third defendant etc. 5. Before the trial Court, six witnesses were examined on the side of the plaintiffs as PW-1 to PW-6 and as many as 53 documents were marked on the side of the plaintiffs as Ex.A1 to Ex.A53. On behalf of the defendants, two witnesses were examined as DW-1 and DW-2 and 15 documents were marked on the side of the defendants as Ex.B1 to Ex.B15. 6. The trial Court, on consideration of oral and documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that all the three prayers sought for by the plaintiffs cannot be maintained before the Civil Court and hence, dismissed the suit. 6. The trial Court, on consideration of oral and documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that all the three prayers sought for by the plaintiffs cannot be maintained before the Civil Court and hence, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 4 of 2005, on the file of Subordinate Court, Thoothukudi and the First Appellate Court affirmed the findings of trial Court with regard to the prayer (a) and (c) by the trial Court and as far as the prayer (b) is concerned, the First Appellate Court held that the plaintifs were entitled to usufructs of tamarind trees standing in the suit property, apart from the perquisites/share in the offerings made in the temple festivals. Therefore, the First Appellate Court partly decreed the suit in respect of prayer (b). Aggrieved by the same, the third defendant has come forward by way of this Second Appeal. 7. At the time of admission, this Court formulated the following substantial questions of law for consideration by order, dated 26.07.2005: 1. Whether the lower appellate Court is right in granting the ancillary and consequential relief ‘B’ while rejecting the main relief of declaration, relief ‘A’? 2. Is not the lower appellate Court erred in granting the relief ‘B’ when the plaintiffs were not recognized as Poojaris after the temple was taken over by the respondents? 3. Is not the learned Subordinate Judge erred in recognizhing the plaintiffs as Poojaris, when there were no appointment by the department after the amendment to Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1970, whereby Section 55 was amended and no one can claim Poojariship, unless his department/temple either recognize the status or appoint as Poojari? 8. 3. Is not the learned Subordinate Judge erred in recognizhing the plaintiffs as Poojaris, when there were no appointment by the department after the amendment to Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1970, whereby Section 55 was amended and no one can claim Poojariship, unless his department/temple either recognize the status or appoint as Poojari? 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the prayer (b) in the plaint regarding share in the perquisites cannot be maintained before the Civil Court by virtue of Section 63(e) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act,1953(herein after referred to as HR &CE Act).The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that subsequent to the filing of the Second Appeal, some of the plaintiffs/legal representatives of the deceased plaintiffs preferred a petition under Section 63(e) of the HR and CE Act before the jurisdictional Joint Commissioner for declaration of their right over the perquisites/share in the offerings made in the temple and in view of the same, the plaintiffs are not entitled to pray for prayer(b) before the Civil Court. 9. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following substantial question of law is also taken up for consideration: (1) Whether the prayer (b) in the plaint is maintainable before the Civil Court in view of Section 63(e) r/w Section 108 of HR and CE Act? 10. The learned counsel for the respondents was heard on all the substantial questions of law. The learned counsel for the respondents tried to justify the decree passed by the First Appellate Court by submitting that the right to perquisites /share in the offerings made in the suit temple is a civil right and the same can be enforced by approaching the Civil Court. 11. Section 63 and Section 108 of HR and CE Act reads 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. (b) whether a trustee holds or held office as a hereditary trustee. (c) whether any property or money is a religious endowment. (b) whether a trustee holds or held office as a hereditary trustee. (c) whether any property or money is a religious endowment. (d) whether any property or money is a specific endowment. (e) whether any person is entitled, by custom or otherwise, to any honour, emolument or perquisite in any religious institution and what the established usage of a religious institution is in regard to any other matter. (f) whether any institution or endowment is wholly or partly of a religious or secular character and whether any property or money has been given wholly or partly for religious or secular uses. (g) where any property or money has been given for the support of an institution which is partly of a religious and partly of a secular character, or the performance of any service or charity connected with such an institution or the performance of a charity which is partly of a religious and partly of a secular character or where any property or money given is appropriated partly to religious and partly to secular uses, as to what portion of such property or money shall be allocated to religious uses.” 108. Bar of suits in respect of administration of 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.” 12. A combined reading of the above mentioned sections make it clear that the Joint Commissioner is the competent authority to decide whether any person is entitled by custom or otherwise to any honour, emolument or perquisite in a religious institution. It is also clear that no suit or legal proceedings shall be instituted in a Civil Court in respect of a matter or dispute for determination of which a provision is made in the HR and CE Act. In the present suit, the plaintiffs are claiming certain remuneration/perquisites like right to enjoy the usufructs of the tamarind trees standing in the suit temple lands as an old custom. In the present suit, the plaintiffs are claiming certain remuneration/perquisites like right to enjoy the usufructs of the tamarind trees standing in the suit temple lands as an old custom. As far as claim of the plaintiffs with regard to remuneration and perquisites etc attached to the office of the Poojariship is concerned, when the prayer (a) is negatived by the Courts below, the Plaintiffs are not entitled to claim those rights which is depending on their status as poojaris. In view of amendment to Section 55 of HR and CE Act abolishing hereditary rights in Poojariship, the Courts below are justified in rejecting prayer (a) in the plaint. Regarding the claim made by the plaintiffs with regard to the perquisites/share in the offerings by way of long established custom in the temple is concerned, the said issue cannot be raised before the Civil Court in view of specific bar under Section 63(e) of HR and CE Act. The entitlement of the plaintiffs for perquisites/remuneration or share in the offerings made in the suit temple by virtue of long established custom and usage in the temple, the competent authority is the Joint Commissioner in an enquiry under Section 63 of the HR and CE Act. Therefore, the Civil Court jurisdiction to decide the said right of the plaintiffs is expressly barred by the provisions of HR and CE Act. Therefore the prayer (b) is also not maintainable before the Civil Court. The substantial question of law taken up for consideration is answered accordingly in favour of the appellant and against the respondents. In view of answer to the substantial question of law, the Second Appeal is allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court granting prayer (b) in the suit and the suit in its entirety is dismissed. 13. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the appellant that some of the plaintiffs and their legal representatives preferred a petition under Section 63(e) of the HR and CE Act praying for declaration of their right to certain perquisites/ remuneration etc as a long established custom and usage of the suit temple. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petition filed by them was returned by the jurisdictional Joint Commissioner on the ground that the same issue is pending before the High Court in Second Appeal. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petition filed by them was returned by the jurisdictional Joint Commissioner on the ground that the same issue is pending before the High Court in Second Appeal. 14. In view of the fact the Second is allowed, dismissing the suit on the ground of jurisdiction, liberty is granted to the respondents/plaintiffs to approach the Joint Commissioner under Section 63(e) of the HR and CE Act in the manner known to law. It is stated by the respondents that the Petition filed by the respondents was returned and it is open to them to take steps to represent and proceed with the same in the manner known to law, if so advised. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.