Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The appellants as defendants resisted the claim made by the respondents herein as plaintiffs on the following grounds:- The respondents herein are not hereditary poojaries cum trustees of Arulmigu Kannimar Temple at Chinnapatti village. In the Inam Fair Register one Manicka Gounder was shown as worshiper and not as poojari. The term worshiper and poojari are different in all aspects and therefore, worshiper cannot be known as poojari of temple. The alleged ancestors of the respondents herein were not managing the affairs of the temple as poojaries and hereditary trustees. The allegation of no interference in the alleged right of the respondents herein as poojaries or trustees for generation is also not correct. The genealogy furnished along with the plaint is not admitted and the same has to be proved. The lands shown in Fair Inam Register were granted as Devadayam for the upkeep of the temple. After holding an enquiry under Minor Inams Abolition Act, 1963, ryotwari patta was issued in the name of the temple by the Settlement Tahsildar, Unit No.I, Madurai in S.R.621/MI Act/MDU-66 dated 5.10.1966 for an extent of 5.69 Acres for the upkeep of the temple as Devadayam in T.D.No.159. No patta was granted in favour of the alleged ancestors of the respondents herein treating them as poojaries of the temple. On the application made by the respondents herein in O.A.No.129 of 1979 under Section 63(b) of the Act, the respondents herein were declared as hereditary trustees of the said temple. They cannot be declared as hereditary trustees under the above said Act. Therefore, a suo motu proceeding was initiated under Section 69(2) of the Act in A.P.No.57 of 1981 and the order of the first defendant was set aside by the second defendant by order dated 10.12 .1980. There is no evidence to show on the side of the respondents herein that they are in management of the temple for more than 3 generations or over 100 years to claim hereditary trustee. The order passed by the second defendant in A.P.No.57 of 1981 is valid and legal and cannot be assailed. The fact of cultivating the lands and paying kist on behalf of the temple by the respondents herein will not confer them to claim poojariship or hereditary trusteeship and the respondents herein are not entitled to the relief sought for in the suit and the suit is not maintainable. It is on these grounds, the appellants as defendants have sought for dismissal of the suit.