N.Natesa Iyer v. The Commissioner H.R. & C.E. (Admn) Dept Madras-342. T.Venkatarama Reddiar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 03.07.2009C O R A MTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR A.S.No.792 and 794 of 1997N.Natesa Iyer.Appellant in both appeals/PlaintiffVs.1. The Commissioner H.R. & C.E. (Admn) Dept Madras-342. T.Venkatarama Reddiar.Respondents in both appeals/DefendantThese appeal suits have been filed under Section 96 of theCivil Procedure Code r/w Section 70(2) of the Hindu Religious andCharitable Endowment Act 22/59 as against the common judgment anddecrees of the learned Subordinate Judge, Vriddhachalam dated24.12.1996 made in O.S.Nos.252/1991 and 251/1991 respectively and toset aside the same.For Appellant : Mr.K.Jayaraman (both Appeals)For Respondents : Mr.M.R.Murugesan,(for R1) Spl. Govt. Pleader (HR & CE)(for R2) No appearance (both Appeals)J U D G M E N TThese two appeals have been preferred against the commonjudgment and decrees of the Trial court dated 24.12.1996 made inO.S.No.252/1991 and O.S.No.251/1991.2. The circumstances under which these appeal happened to bepreferred, can be briefly stated as follows:-i) The appellant in both the appeals filed an applicationbefore the Deputy Commissioner (HR & CE), Tiruchirapalli for adeclaration under Section 63(b) of the Hindu Religious andCharitable Endowments Act, 1959 that he was holding office as ahereditary trustee of Sri Vinayagar temple, Sri Pidari temple, SriAyyanar temple and Sri Mariamman temple at Ko-Poovanur village in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Vriddhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore district. The said claim was madeon the basis of his contention that the temples were founded by hisforefather Chinnasamy Iyer and the management of the templecontinued to vest with the members of the appellant's familyhereditarily from generation to generation; that the name of theappellant's grand father had been inscribed on the "Thiruvachi" andthat the entire 6.35 acres of land belonging to the templescontinued to be in the possession and enjoyment of the appellant'sgrand father, after his death in the enjoyment of the father of theappellant and then at last in the possession and enjoyment of theappellant. It was his further contention before the DeputyCommissioner (HR & CE), Tiruchirapalli that they were doing dailypooja and 'Neivathyam' with the income derived from the above saidland; that they were doing it in their capacities as hereditarytrustees of the temples and that the further fact that allpanchaloga Vikrahas and jewels of the temples were in the custody ofthe appellant and before him his father and before him his grandfather, would be a clear evidence to show that the appellant was thehereditary trustee of the temples. ii) The said application filed under Section 63(b) of theHindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959 was initiallytaken on file as O.A.No.125/1978 by the Deputy Commissioner (HR &CE), Tiruchirapalli on his file. After enquiry, the saidapplication was dismissed. The Commissioner (HR & CE) allowed anappeal filed by the appellant herein and remitted the matter back tothe Deputy Commissioner (HR & CE) for fresh disposal after furtherenquiry. After remand, the said application was re-numbered asO.A.No.16/1983 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner (HR & CE),Tiruchirapalli. iii) When the said petition was thus pending before the DeputyCommissioner (HR & CE), Tiruchirapalli one Venkatarama Reddiar, thesecond respondent herein, got himself impleaded in the saidapplication by filing an application for impleadment, which wasultimately allowed by the Deputy Commissioner (HR & CE). The secondrespondent also filed a parallel application, which was taken onfile by the Deputy Commissioner (HR & CE) as O.A.No.64/1983, fordeclaring him to be the hereditary trustee of the above saidtemples. iv). A common enquiry was conducted in both the applications bythe Deputy Commissioner (HR & CE) and at last, on 11.08.1996, theDeputy Commissioner (HR & CE) passed a common order dismissing theapplication filed by the appellant (O.A.No.16/1983) and allowing theapplication filed by the second respondent herein (O.A.No.64/1983).As against the said orders, the appellant preferred two appealpetitions before the Commissioner (HR & CE) in A.P.No.48/1986 andA.P.No.50/1986. The Commissioner (HR & CE), by orders dated30.07.1991 and 31.07.1991 dismissed both the appeals (A.P.No.50/1986and A.P.No.48/1986).v) Challenging the said orders and praying for decrees settingaside the above said orders of the Commissioner (HR & CE), theappellant herein filed two suits O.S.Nos.251/1991 and 252/1991 onthe file of the Subordinate Judge, Vriddhachalam under Section 70 of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The saidsuits were resisted by the Commissioner (HR & CE) and VenkataramaReddiar, the present respondents in these appeals, who were arrayedas defendants 1 and 2 in the said suits. The Commissioner (HR &CE)/first respondent herein resisted the suit contending that theforefathers of the appellant and the appellant himself functionedonly as Poojaris (priests) of the temples in question; that theproperties of the temples were with them as they were enjoined withthe duty of doing daily pooja and neivethyam from the income derivedfrom the properties of the temples and that neither the appellantnor his forefathers functioned as trustees of the temples at anypoint of time. It was also contended by the first respondent that ina previous case, namely O.S.No.1306/1928 on the file of DistrictMunsif Court, Vriddhachalam, filed by the mother of the secondrespondent herein challenging the mortgage created by NallathambiPandaram, father of the appellant herein, in respect of the templeproperties, a compromise decree was passed in which the saidNallathambi Pandaram (father of the appellant) admitted that themother of the second respondent and her male issues and one MutthalReddiar were the hereditary trustees of the temples; that the saidadmission made by the father of the appellant was binding on theappellant/plaintiff and that the appellant/plaintiff was estoppedfrom contending otherwise. vi) The second respondent also contested the suits raisingsimilar objections in his written statements. In addition to that,it was also contended by the second respondent that patta was issuedin the name of second respondent herein in respect of the templeproperties, as he happened to be the hereditary trustee of the saidtemples and that the appellant herein filed an appeal I.A.T.AppealNo.7/1968 on the file of Sub-Court, Cuddalore, which was ultimatelydecreed in terms of a compromise memo in which also the appellantherein/plaintiff once again reiterated his commitment to be bound bythe compromise decree passed in O.S.No.1306/1928 on the file ofDistrict Munsif Court, Vriddhachalam.vii) Based on the pleadings made on either side in both thesuits, a common trial was conducted. The court below re-arranged andrecast the issues common for both the cases which are as follows:-i) Whether plaintiff's contention that the plaintiffand his forefathers were the hereditary trustees of thesuit temples is sustainable?ii) Whether the plaintiff and his forefathers haveperfected title by adverse possession in respect of thesuit temples?iii) Whether the orders passed by the Commissioner(HR & CE) in A.P.No.48/1986 and 50/1986 are liable to beset aside? iv) Whether the suits are liable to he dismissed forwant of service of notice under Section 80 C.P.C.? https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Andv) Whether the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to therelief of permanent injunction as prayed for?3. The appellant/plaintiff figured as the sole witness (PW-1)on the side of the appellant/plaintiff and the secondrespondent/second defendant figured as sole defence witness on theside defendants/respondents. 53 documents were marked as Ex.A1 toEx.A53 on the side of the appellant/plaintiff, whereas eightdocuments were marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B8 on the side of therespondents/defendants.4. The court below considered the evidence brought before it inthe light of the arguments advanced by the parties and upon such aconsideration, came to the conclusion that there was no scope forinterference with the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (HR &CE), which stood confirmed by the orders of the Commissioner (HR &CE) and that the appellant herein/plaintiff was not entitled to thereliefs sought for in the Plaint.5. Aggrieved by and challenging the above said common judgmentand decrees dated 24.12.1996, the appellant herein/plaintiff hascome forward with these appeals on various grounds set out in theAppeal Memoranda.6. The fourth issue found in the judgment of the trial courtafter re-arranging and recasting the issues was to the effect,whether the suit was liable to be dismissed because of the failureto issue notice under Section 80 CPC? Though such a contention hadbeen raised in the written statement, during the course of trial, itwas admitted that notice had been given under Section 80 CPC priorto the filing of the suit and that the requirement of the saidSection had been complied with. Thus, the court below, afterrecording the admission, made an observation that a decision on thesaid issue was not warranted in view of the admission. In fact thesaid issue was decided in favour of the appellant herein/plaintiff.All other issues were decided against the appellant and in favour ofthe respondents herein. As such the points that arise forconsideration in these appeals are as follows:-1) Whether the finding of the court below to theeffect that the appellant/plaintiff and his forefatherswere not the hereditary trustees of the suit templesrequires any interference?2) Whether the orders passed by the Commissioner (HR &CE)/first respondent herein in A.P.No.48/1986 and 50/1986are liable to be set aside? And3) Whether the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to therelief of permanent injunction as prayed for in this suit? https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7. The arguments advanced by Mr.K.Jayaraman, learned counselfor the appellant and Mr.M.R.Murugesan, learned Special GovernmentPleader (HR & CE) for the first respondent were heard. Thematerials on record were perused.8. Though the appellant has included a number of grounds in theAppeal memorandum filed in each one of the appeals, the learnedcounsel for the appellant mainly based his arguments on thefollowing two grounds alone:- 1) In small village temples, there isnothing wrong in the trusteeship residing with the Poojaris of thetemples and in fact it is quite natural for such small temples tohave the Poojariship and trusteeship in one and the same person/s.2) The Deputy Commissioner (HR & CE) under Sections 63(b) of theHindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 does have poweronly to decide the question whether a trustee holds or held officeas hereditary trustee and in case of rival claims to hereditarytrusteeship, the Deputy Commissioner does not have power to decidewho among the rival claimants is the hereditary trustee.9. On the other hand, it is argued on behalf of the respondentsthat the learned counsel for the appellant confined his argumentswith regard to the above said aspects alone knowing fully well that,on merits the appeals are bound to fail. It is the furthercontention raised on behalf of the respondents that the appellanthimself having approached the Deputy Commissioner (HR&CE) with aprayer for a declaration that he is the hereditary trustee of thesuit temples and thus having invoked the powers of the DeputyCommissioner (HR&CE), shall not be allowed to plead that the DeputyCommissioner does not have the authority to decide the rival claimsto hereditary trusteeship to the suit temples. It has also beencontended that the question - "who was the hereditary trustee" -had already been decided in two former cases in which decrees werepassed on the basis of compromise effected between the partiesthereto; that the father of the appellant in one of those cases andthe appellant himself in the other case had acknowledged the factthat the mother of the second respondent herein and her male issueswere the hereditary trustees of the suit temples and the appellantand his forefathers were only poojaris entitled to enjoy theproperties of the temples with an obligation to perform daily poojaand neivethyam using the income derived from the properties and thathence, apart from being bound by the said decrees, the appellant isalso estopped from contending otherwise.10. The further contention raised on behalf of the respondentsis that in view of the earlier judgments which are binding on theappellant, the Deputy Commissioner could not have taken any otherview than the one taken by him and that the same was rightlyconfirmed by the Commissioner (HR&CE)/first respondent herein/firstdefendant. It is also contended on behalf of the respondents thatthough the suits were filed under Section 70 of the Hindu Religiousand Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, the court below, on an https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appreciation of evidence adduced before it, has taken an independentdecision that the appellant is not the hereditary trustee of thesuit temples as claimed by him and on the other hand, the secondrespondent is the hereditary trustee and that therefore, the veryplea made by the appellant in these appeals that the Deputycommissioner (HR&CE) did not have the power to decide who among therival contestants is the hereditary trustee, has lost itssignificance, as the suit filed under Section 70 of the HR&CE Actcannot be construed to be an appeal and the court has to arrive at adecision based on the pleadings made before it and the evidenceadduced before it.11. In support of his contention that Section 63(b) of the Actdoes not enable the Deputy Commissioner (HR&CE) to decide who is thehereditary trustee, as there are rival claims made by theappellant/plaintiff and the second respondent/second defendant, thelearned counsel for the appellant has cited the judgment of a singlejudge of this court pronounced in Aviyur Mariamman Temple byHereditary Trustee Parasuraman v. T.N.Sundramoorthi Pillai andanother reported in 1981 (1) MLJ 392. Thiru.Justice G.Ramanujamrelying on the decisions made by this court in two earlier cases,namely Krishnaswami Raja v. Krishna Raja reported in (1968) 1 MLJ119 and Rengayya Gounder v. Kannappa Naicker reported in (1971) 1M.L.J. 358, has held that the power given to the Deputy Commissionerunder Section 63(b) of the Hindu Religious & Charitable EndowmentsAct, 1959 was confined to a decision "whether a trustee holds orheld office as a hereditary trustee" i.e. that decision should be inrelation to the status of the office of the trusteeship, namelywhether it is hereditary or not and that the Deputy Commissioner(HR&CE) is not competent to go into the further question as to whoamong the competing claimants is a hereditary trustee, as the sameis not covered by the above provision. It has also been observed inthe said judgment that the decision made by the Deputy Commissionerunder Section 63(b) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable EndowmentsAct, 1959 regarding who among the competent claimants is ahereditary trustee, cannot bind the civil court and the civil courthas to decide the question independently on the evidence adduced bythe parties.12. A careful reading of the said judgment relied on by thelearned counsel for the appellant will show that the same will notlend any support to the contention raised in this case on behalf ofthe appellant. In the said case cited on behalf of the appellant,the status of the office of the trusteeship was not in dispute andit was admitted by both parties that the office was hereditary. Theappellant therein filed an application before the DeputyCommissioner of HR&CE under Section 63(b) of Hindu Religious andCharitable Endowments Act, 1959 for a declaration that the office ofthe trusteeship in the temple was hereditary and that he was thehereditary trustee of the temple. The Deputy Commissioner grantedthe declaration as prayed for by him. Therefore, there was nooccasion for any rival claim as no one was made a party respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ before the Deputy Commissioner, to challenge the said order byfiling a suit under Section 70 of the HR & CE Act and in fact nosuit under Section 70 was filed to challenge the said order of theDeputy Commissioner (HR & CE). Under such circumstances alone, therival claimant filed a regular suit before the District Munsif for adeclaration that he was the hereditary trustee of the temple and fora permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein frominterfering with his functioning as a trustee of the temple. Thedefendant therein, in whose favour the order of the DeputyCommissioner declaring him to be a hereditary trustee was there,contended that the order had become final and conclusive, as thesame was not challenged under Section 70 of the Tamil Nadu HinduReligious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The trial courtupheld the contention of the defendants therein, which was reversedby the first appellate court holding that the Civil Court shouldhave made a decision independent of the decision made by the DeputyCommissioner, since the order of the Deputy Commissioner was notchallenged by way of a suit under Section 70 of the Act. Resultantlythe suit was remitted back to the trial court for fresh disposal onmerits. The said order of remand was challenged before the Highcourt and the High Court concurred with the lower appellate courtand dismissed the appeal filed against the order of remand.13. Two things emerge from the said judgment relied on by thelearned counsel for the appellant. First of all, it was heldtherein that the decision of the Deputy Commissioner as to whoamong the rival claimants was the hereditary trustee of the templewas not binding on the Civil Court because the said order was notchallenged in a statutory suit under Section 70 of the HR&CE Act,1959. The power given to the Deputy Commissioner under Section 63(b) of the HR&CE Act is confined to render a decision as to thestatus of the office of the trusteeship, i.e. 'whether the same ishereditary or not?' When the status of the office is decided oradmitted, then the further question as to who among the rivalclaimants is the hereditary trustee, is outside the scope of "theexclusive power" given to the Deputy Commissioner, in the sense thatany decision rendered by the Deputy Commissioner in this regard,shall not be binding on the Civil Court and the Civil Court has torender an independent finding. Application of such a restrictionshall not be extended to the decisions rendered by the Civil Courtseven in a suit filed under Section 70 of the HR&CE Act. Though thescheme of the Act provides for filing a suit for setting aside theorder of the Deputy Commissioner passed under Section 63(b) of theHR&CE Act, the same is nonetheless an original suit in which thequestion whether who among the rival contestants is the hereditarytrustee of the suit temple shall be very much within the scope ofthe suit if the same is raised as an issue in the suit, with a riderthat the said question has to be decided independently based on theevidence adduced before the court. When such a decision is renderedby the Civil Court in a statutory suit filed under Section 70 of theHR&CE Act, the parties to the suit and anybody claiming through suchparties will lose their right to file a fresh (regular) suit. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

14. In the case on hand, the appellant himself invoked thejurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner which led to the invocationof the said power of the Deputy Commissioner by the secondrespondent also. The Deputy Commissioner, rightly or wronglyrendered a decision, of course based on earlier judgments betweenthe parties, to the effect that the appellant was not the hereditarytrustee and the second respondent was the hereditary trustee. Thesame was challenged initially before the Commissioner (HR&CE), thefirst respondent herein/first defendant, who also confirmed theorder of the Deputy Commissioner. Thereafter, the appellant himselffiled the suits under Section 70 of the HR&CE Act, not only to setaside the order of the Commissioner (HR&CE) confirming the order ofthe Deputy Commissioner, but also for an injunction restraining thedefendants from interfering with his peaceful possession andmanagement of the suit temples in his capacity as hereditary trusteeof the suit temples. The prayer in the plaint has been made in aningenious way as if the suit was for setting aside the order of theDeputy Commissioner and for an injunction. However, in the plaint,the appellant had challenged the order of the Deputy Commissioneronly on factual matrix and not on the ground that the DeputyCommissioner did not have power to decide whether one holds or heldoffice as hereditary trustee. For the purpose of deciding whetherthe appellant/plaintiff shall be entitled to the relief ofinjunction as sought for, a decision as to whether he is ahereditary trustee of the suit temples has become necessary. As theprayer for injunction was made on the specific plea that theappellant/plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the templesand their properties in his capacity as hereditary trustee, whichwas disputed by the respondents/defendants, decision on the issueregarding the said claim, at least incidentally, has become anecessary one. After having invited framing of an issue to thateffect and a decision regarding the said issue, theappellant/plaintiff shall not be entitled to contend that the saidquestion was decided without jurisdiction. A proper reading of thejudgment relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant in thelight of the concerned provision of law, will make it clear thatthough it was observed in the said decision that the DeputyCommissioner's power under Section 63(b) did not extend to renderinga finding as to who between the rival claimants was the hereditarytrustee, the same should be interpreted to mean that such a decisionrendered by the Deputy Commissioner shall not be binding on theCivil Court and that the Civil Court has to decide the questionindependently.Section 63 of the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Actreads as follows:"Subject to the rights of the suit or appealhereinafter provided the Joint Commissioner or the DeputyCommissioner, as the case may be, shall have power toenquire into and decide the following disputes andmatters:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (a)----(b) whether a trustee holds or held office as ahereditary trustee."15. The question whether a person is a trustee can be said tobe in-built in the question whether such person holds or held theoffice as hereditary trustee. Therefore, we cannot totally detachthe first question from the second question to deny the power of theDeputy Commissioner to decide the issue. Therefore, while decidingthe issue, whether the claimant holds or held office as hereditarytrustee? whether he is the trustee?, can also be decided by theDeputy Commissioner incidentally. If such a decision is renderedwhen there are rival claimants, it is not obligatory on the part ofthe losing party to file the statutory suit under Section 70 of theHR&CE Act. The rival claims can be agitated by an ordinary suit ina civil court. On the other hand, if the losing party chooses tofile a statutory suit under Section 70 of the HR & CE Act, then itcannot be said that the civil court dealing with the statutory suitunder Section 70 shall have no power to decide the question whoamong the rival claimants is the hereditary trustee. But such adecision should be rendered by the court independently. When suchan independent decision is rendered by the civil court, albeit, in asuit filed under Section 70 of the HR&CE Act, the same cannot bechallenged citing the limitation of the power of the DeputyCommissioner to go into the question. Such an interpretation willhelp in achieving avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings. As thesuits have been filed not only to set aside the orders of theCommissioner (HR&CE), but also for the relief of permanentinjunction not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of thesuit temples based on his (appellant's) claim that he is thehereditary trustee of the temples, by necessity the court below hadto decide the question whether the appellant/plaintiff is thehereditary trustee of the suit temples incidentally.16. In the case on hand, admittedly the suit temples, 4 innumber, are public temples. It is also not in dispute that theoffice of the trusteeship of the suit temples is hereditary. Theappellant/plaintiff claims to be a hereditary trustee based on hiscontention that his grandfather Chinnasamy Iyer founded thosetemples and the trusteeship of the temples continued to be with hisfamily continuously from generation to generation without anybreak. He has also relied on the pattas issued in the name ofArunachala Gurukkal and Kuzhanthai Vel Pandaram in respect of thelands belonging to the temples. The other documents produced on theside of the appellant/plaintiff were the documents to show that thetemple properties were in their enjoyment; that the statues of thetemple were in their custody and that some of the registers, receiptbooks were also available with the plaintiff. Theappellant/plaintiff also relied on the fact that the name of thegrandfather of the plaintiff was inscribed in the "Thiruvachi" ofone of the temples to show that the plaintiff and his forefathers https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ were acting as hereditary trustees of the temple. Those documentsare not enough to prove his contention that the temples were foundedby his forefathers and that the trusteeship stood vested with hisfamily continuously. In fact those documents are not even enough toshow that any of his forefathers or the appellant/plaintiff acted asthe trustee of the temples at any point of time. Admittedly, atpresent the appellant and earlier his forefathers were the poojaris(priests) of the temples and in their capacity as priests alone, theproperties of the temples happened to be in their possession. It isthe clear contention of the respondents that the statues, jewels andother articles belonging to the temples including the receipt booksproduced by the appellant/plaintiff happened to be in the possessionof the plaintiff and his forefathers since they happened to be thepoojaris of the temples as it is common to leave those things in thecustody of the poojaris. 17. It is also contended on behalf of the respondents that atthe time of Inam abolition Settlement, pattas were issued inrespect of the temple properties erroneously in favour of theappellant herein/plaintiff and on appeal to the sub-court, the orderof the Settlement Officer was set aside and patta were issued in thename of the second respondent/second defendant, as the hereditarytrustee of the temples. Clinching documents have been produced onthe side of the respondents to show that the question of hereditarytrusteeship to the suit temples had already been finally decided atleast in two cases between the parties now litigating. In both thecases, decrees were passed based on the compromise effected betweenthe parties. In a suit instituted in 1928 itself (O.S.No.1306 of1928) on the file of the District Munsif Court, Vriddhachalam, thefather of the appellant/plaintiff entered into a compromise with themother of the second respondent conceding that she was in managementof the temples as its hereditary trustee and that her male issueswere entitled to succeed to the hereditary trusteeship of the suittemples. The said suit was filed by the mother of the secondrespondent on behalf of the father of the second respondent, whenthe father of the appellant/plaintiff had mortgaged some of theproperties of the temples to other persons who were arrayed in thesaid suit O.S.No.1306/1928 as defendants 1 to 4. As per thecompromise, it was agreed that the mortgagees should enjoy theproperties for a specific number of years at the expiry of whichperiod the mortgage debt would stand discharged and that till thenthe father of the appellant should contribute his own funds for thedaily pooja and neivethyam of the temples. Certified copies of thejudgment and decree made in O.S.No.1306/1928 have been produced andmarked as Ex.B1 and B2. 18. During inam abolition settlement, pattas were issued in thename of the poojaris of the temples by the Settlement Officer. Thesame was challenged in I.A.T.Appeal No.7/1968 before the Sub-court,Cuddalore. Certified copy of the decree in the said appeal has beenproduced and marked as Ex.B7. The said appeal also ended in acompromise in which the appellant herein admitted that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ compromise decree passed in O.S.No.1306/1928 is binding upon him.Thereby he has admitted that the second respondent was thehereditary trustee of the suit temples and that he (the appellantherein) was only a poojari of the temple. Due to the clinching andoverwhelming evidence adduced on the side of therespondents/defendants, the court below has arrived at theconclusion that the appellant's/ plaintiff's claim to be thehereditary trustee of the temples cannot be substantiated and thaton the other hand, the compromise decree passed in the formerproceedings in which the second respondent and his fore-fathers wereadmitted to be the hereditary trustees, are binding on theappellant/plaintiff. The court below, without being influenced bythe order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, on an independentappreciation of the pleadings made and evidence adduced before it,came to the correct conclusion that the appellant's/plaintiff'sclaim to the office of the hereditary trusteeship was notsubstantiated and that on the other hand it was already held betweenthe present litigating parties in the former proceedings that thehereditary trusteeship stood rested with the ancestors of the secondrespondent and now with the second respondent himself.19. Based on the said finding alone, the court below dismissedboth the suits filed by the appellant. This court finds no defector infirmity in the common judgment and decrees of the court below.There is no merit in the appeals and the appeals deserve to bedismissed. However, this court feels no order as to payment of costmay be passed.20. In the result confirming the judgment and decrees of thetrial court, the appeals are dismissed. No cost. asrSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1. The Subordinate Judge, Vriddhachalam2. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.+ 2 ccs to Mr. K. Jayaraman, Advocate SR No.28331, 28330+ 2 ccs to the Government Pleader HR & CE, SR No.28621, 28664NTK(CO)SR/24.7.2009 Judgment inA.S.No.792 and 794 of 1997