The Executive officer of HR&CE; filed a written statement The suit temple is not a denominational temple belonging to Hindu Nadars and Grocery Merchants among Hindu Nadars residing at Sivakasi. There are public hundies in the said temple. The public used to pour money into the hundies. The budgets are sanctioned by the Department only. The accounts are subjected to audit and contribution and audit fees under Section 92 of the H.R. & C.E. Act. Hence the trustees are not entitled to protection under Article 26 of the Constitution of India read with Section 107 of the H.R. & C.E. Act.

The trustee handover the charge on 9-6-1976 to the Executive officer. . The learned Subordinate Judge, after framing the necessary issues and in the light of the evidence available on record, dismissed the suit with costs. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the trustees filed an appeal in A.S. No. 1980/ 80 before the District Court, Ramanathapuram. The learned District Judge after framing the necessary points for consideration and after reappraising the whole evidence allowed the appeal and decreed the suit filed by the trustees.

Against the decree of the lower appellate Court, the defendants filed the present appeal before this Court. While entertaining the Second Appeal, this Court has framed the following substantial questions of law lor consideration :--

(1) Whether Section 108 of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act does not bar a suit for declaration that a temple is a denominational temple?

(2) Whether the relief claimed in the suit cannot be granted urder Section 64(c) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act? And

(3) Whether the trustees are not stopped from claiming the relief in the suit in view of their acceptance of appointment as trustees by the department?

The trustees took the proceedings to the specific findings of the courts below and in the light of the oral and documentary evidence, placed on the side of the trustees submits that the suit temple is a denominational temple of the trustee' community. He also submits that inasmuch as the lower appellate Court alter analysing the entire oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the suit temple is a denominational temple of the trustees' community based on the acceptable evidence, granted decree in favour of the turstees,

The trustees have claimed in the plaint that the suit temple was originally founded and constructed by Hindu Nadars and Grocery Merchants belonging to the Hindu Nadars. They also claimed that i.e. Sri Sivasubramania Swamy Temple is a denominational Cempfe belonging to Sivakasi Hindu Nadar and no member of public is allowed to worship. The right to appoint trustees of the temple exclusively belongs to the Grocery Merchants belonging to Sivakasi Hindu Nadars. The H.R. & C.E. Department have been approving and recognising the appointments made by the Grocery Merchants. In support of the above pleadings, documents filed on the trustees' side start from 1928 and end with 1980.

The lower appellate Court after determining necessary points reappraised the while evidence. Even though there is no direct evidence with regard to the foundation of the suit temple by the Nadar Community of Sivakasi, after analysing the other circumstantial evidence viz., Ancient text books and other various things coupled with the oral evidence of trustees and in the light of the non rebuttal evidence on the side of the HR&CE; officers, accepted the case of the trustees and decreed the suit.