This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.86 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Tenkasi.
2.The appellants filed a suit in O.S.No.86 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Tekasi, to permit the plaintiffs to file the suit in representative capacity so that the suit would be one for themselves and on behalf of the Hindu Nadars of Madathur-Venniyur Village and to set aside the order passed by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department in the appeal filed in A.P.No.23 of 2002 on 06.01.2004 and to declare the office of trusteeship over the first schedule temple as hereditary and for consequential injunction restraining the defendant and their men from interfering with the plaintiff's right to administer the temple. As a matter of fact, the suit is a statutory suit filed under Section 70 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Earlier, the plaintiffs have filed an application under Section 63 (b) of the Act to hold that the temple in question is being administered by the members of the Hindu Nadar community living in Madathur ? Venniyur Village and to hold that the office is hereditary. The said application was rejected and an appeal was filed by the plaintiffs before the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. Since the Commissioner also dismissed the appeal, the present suit came to be filed questioning the orders passed by the defendant in the suit in the appeal filed by the plaintiffs.
3.The case of the plaintiffs in the plaint are as follows: 3.1.Shri Subramanya Swamy Kovil located in Madathur-Venniyur Village was established by the members of the plaintiffs' community and that it belonged to them exclusively. The right to hold the office of Akthar (Haqdar) vests with the married men of Hindu Nadars residing in the village. The temple was being administered by the trustees elected by the members of the Hindu Nadar residing in the Village by collecting ?thalaikattu vari? from each varithars. Since there are more than 500 varithars in the village entitled to be nominated for the trusteeship, the suit is being filed in a representative capacity. The properties described in schedule 2 to 5 were purchased by the members of the community of the plaintiffs for the temple and that the properties are in the exclusive management of the plaintiffs.
3.2.From time immemorial, the Hindu Nadars in Madathur-Venniyur Village have established the temple for the benefit of the members of the Hindu Nadars in Madathur-Venniyur Village and the temple was constructed by collecting money only from the members. The temple was renovated by them and they have also constructed a temple tank. The temple was originally constructed during the time of one Kuthalinga Nadar who was the then Akthar with a contribution of the Hindu Nadars of Madathur-Venniyur Village. It is a temple which is common only to the Hindu Nadars. The recitals in the stone inscriptions found in the temple would show the fact that the temple was constructed and administered by the Hindu Nadars of Madathur-Venniyur Village.
3.3.The temple is administered by the committee consisting of six trustees who are elected from the members of Hindu Nadars in Madathur- Venniyur Village. Since the right to administer the temple is being exercised by the members of the community hereditarily, the plaintiffs are also entitled to the hereditary right by prescription. Though the plaintiffs are agreeable to administer the temple under the control of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, the department has no right to interfere with the administration of the temple by the plaintiffs. The expenses relating to the day-to-day administration of the temple is spent only by the fund mobilised from the subscription collected from the members of the community. No other member in the village belonging to other community has a right to participate in the administration of the temple or other rights. Since the plaintiffs wanted their right to hold office as hereditary trustees, they filed an application in O.A.No.8 of 1991 before the Deputy Commissioner, Tirunelveli. After a long delay, due to the administrative reasons, the said application was dismissed by order dated 31.10.2001. However, a copy of the order was sent to the plaintiffs only on 14.07.2002. Thereafter, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal in A.P.No.23 of 2002 before the defendant namely the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, who dismissed the appeal by order dated 06.01.2004. It was therefore the plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit under Section 70 of the Act. The order passed by the Commissioner is contrary to several precedents particularly in the case of A.N.Ramaswami Iyer and others v. The Commissioner, H.R.&C.E. (Administration), Madras and another reported in 1975 (2) MLJ 178. The plaintiffs are therefore entitled to the declaration declaring the office of trusteeship attached to the suit temple as hereditary and other consequential reliefs.
4.The suit was contested by the respondent by stating the following facts:
(a) The temple is located in a land which is registered in the name of temple.
(b) Since the temple is not located in the land belonging to the community of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs cannot claim that the temple belong to the plaintiffs' community. No document is available to show the establishment of temple by the plaintiffs. The members of the other community have right to worship. If for any one to claim hereditary right or for the plaintiffs to claim hereditary right, the plaintiffs should prove that the temple is located in the land belonging to the community. The plaintiffs have to establish that their ancestor constructed the temple. Further, they must also produce documents to show that the founder of the temple has executed a deed as to how the administration should be done by the members of the community.
(c)The properties purchased in the name of the temple with the amounts that came from the collection of money from the people of Madathur- Venniyur Village and the common fund namely the balance available after the expenditure incurred by the community people out of the money collected from the members of the community as Thalakattuvari. Hence, the temple was not constructed by the contribution of any individual or by members of a particular community. One Muthuswamy who was examined as P.W.1 in O.A. No.8 of 1991 has stated that every year during the month of Margazhi, Madathur- Venniyur Village people used to nominate the new trustees. There is no document produced to show how the trustees of the temple are to be appointed. The founder of the temple have not prescribed any mode for nominating the trustees. Hence, every member who is entitled to worship in the temple has a right to be considered for nominating as trustees.
(d)The other contentions on the basis of inscriptions in stone are denied as they were done recently. At least, to claim hereditary right, it must be proved that the plaintiffs' community is administering the temple for three generations. Unless the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs produce documents to prove how the temple was being administered in the past for three generations, the case of the plaintiffs cannot be accepted.
(e)Every person living in Madathur-Venniyur Village is entitled to worship in the temple and all such persons can claim right to be appointed as trustees and hence, the contention of the plaintiffs that the right of trusteeship vests only with the Hindu Nadars in the village is not acceptable.
(f)The plaintiffs earlier filed a suit in O.S.No.278 of 1981 on the file of the District Munisif Court, Tenkasi, to declare the temple as a community temple belongs to the Hindu Nadars of Madathur-Venniyur Village. Though the said suit was decreed, the defendant filed an appeal in A.S.No.121 of 1986 on the file of the Sub Court, Tenkasi, and the said appeal was allowed. No further appeal was filed by the plaintiffs. Hence, the plaintiffs are not entitled to a declaration sought for. The decisions in the previous suit in O.S.No.278 of 1981 would operate as res judicata and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
(g)The documents filed by the plaintiffs in the original proceedings before the Joint Commissioner, Tirunelveli, would not establish their right. The temple has hundial and the public offers money to the temple. A marriage hall has been constructed by collecting money from the public. No document has been filed by the plaintiffs to show how the trustees are elected during the past. Since the plaintiffs have not satisfied by fitting themselves within the definition of hereditary trustee as per
Section 6(11) of the Act, the claim of plaintiffs was rejected by the Joint Commissioner and the order of Joint Commissioner was confirmed by the defendant in the appeal preferred by them. The other contentions of the plaintiffs are not sustainable as they are not supported by any evidence.
5.The trial Court dismissed the suit mainly on the ground that the claim of plaintiffs to declare their hereditary right is not sustainable as management of temple by an elected representative of members of community will not satisfy the requirement of
Section 6(11) of the Act.
6.The point for determination is whether the administration of the temple by the elected representatives of a particular community in the village would enable the member of the community to get a declaration of their right under Section 63(b) of the Act.
7.The Joint Commissioner while deciding the application filed by the plaintiffs in O.A.No.8 of 1991, mainly relied upon the report of the Inspector, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, dated 02.09.1993. In the report, the prescribed format containing the relevant particulars is also found. The same is very relevant and hence it is extracted as follows:
[email protected]/nfhtpy; !;jhgpjk; gw;wpa gj;jpuk; VjhtJ cs;sjh> gj;jpuk; vJt[k; ,y;iy/ Mdhy; 2/1/1923k; njjpa fy;btl;L kl;Lk; cs;sJ/ ,jpy; jpU/Fj;jhyp';f ehlhh; vd;gth; mf;jhuhapUe;J klj;J}h;-btz;zpa{h; ,e;J ehlhh;fshy; thp bfhLj;J & nfhapy; fl;lg;gl;ljhf fz;Ls;sJ/ 2/nfhapy; Vw;gLj;jpatuhy; guk;giu jh;kfh;j;jh; cj;jpnahfj;jpw;F tUtJ Fwpj;J khK:iy mDrhpj;J xG';F Vw;gLj;jg;gl;Ls;sjh> ,y;iy 3/nfhapy; ahuhy; vg;nghJ !;jhgpf;fg;gl;lJ> 2/1/1923y; !;jhgpjk; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/ 4/kDjhuh;fspd; Kd;ndhh;fs; nfhapiy !;jhgpjk; bra;ag;gl;lth;fsplkpUe;J chpik bgw;Ws;sduh> khWjypd;wp jh;kfh;j;jhf;fs; tHpa[hpikahf jh;kfh;j;jh; gjtp trpj;Js;sduh> ,y;iy 5/kDjhh;fspd; FLk;gj;ij jtpu ntW vtUk; nfhapiy eph;tfpj;Js;sduh> kDjhuh;fs; j';fSf;F kl;Lk; chpik nfl;fhky; ehlhh; rK:fj;jpdh; midtUf;Fk; chpik nfl;gjhy; ehlhh; rK:fj;ijr; nrh;e;j kw;w FLk;gj;jpdh; eph;thfj;jpy; ,Ue;Js;sdh;/ gpw rK:jhaj;jpdh; ahUk; eph;thfj;jpy; ,Ue;jjpy;iy/ 6/ nfhapy; njt!;jhdf; fkpl;oapy; MSiff;Fl;gl;L ,Ue;J i& fkpl;oapduhy; jh;kfh;j;jhf;fs; epakpf;fg;gl;oUf;fpwhh;fsh> ,y;iy 7 & 8/ nfhapYf;Fg; ghj;jpag;gl;l brhj;Jf;fs; ntW ahuhYk; eph;tfpf;fg;gl;Ls;sjh> ,y;iy 9/guk;giu jh;kfh;j;jh cj;jpnahfj;jpw;F tUtJ Fwpj;J khK:iy mDrhpj;J Vw;gLj;jg;gl;l xG';F gw;wpa tptuk;/ ,y;iy 10/guk;giu jh;kfh;j;jh chpik kDjhuhpd; FLk;gj;jpy; ,Ue;J tUtjw;fhd rhl;rpa';fSk;. KhWjyhd rhl;rpa';fSk;> kDjhuhpd; rK:fj;jpy; ,Ue;J tUtjw;fhd rhl;rpa';fs; cz;L/ khWjyhd rhl;rpa';fs; ,y;iy/@
8.In this case, the proceedings of the defendant dated 06.01.2004 has been marked as Ex.A1. The annexure to the order of the Commissioner is marked as Ex.A2. From the records, it is seen that the entire file relating to the annexure to the order of Commissioner under Ex.A1 is marked as Ex.A2. The entire file relating to the proceedings of the Joint Commissioner, Tirunelveli in O.A.No.8 of 1991 is produced as Ex.B1. From the files, the report of the Inspector, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Tenkasi along with the evidence of witnesses and other documents are found. The statement of witnesses are also found in the file. From the materials disclosed in the report of the Inspector of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Tenkasi, it can be seen that the Inspector was of the view that no document is available to show how the temple was constructed. However, the temple was constructed by one Kuthalinga Nadar in his capacity as Akthar with the fund provided by the Hindu Nadars of Madathur-Venniyur Village as vari. Though the temple was constructed on 02.01.1923, the founder of the temple has not indicated anything to regulate the administration of the temple. The plaintiffs have not obtained any right from the founder of trust. Only the members of the Hindu Nadar community in Madathur-Venniyur Village are administering the temple and no other person belong to other community was in the administration of the temple. No trustee was appointed by the Community constituted by the then Devasvom Board. The properties belonged to the temple was never in the administration of any one who belongs to other community. But, succession to the office of the Trusteeship is regulated as there is ample evidence to show that the administration of the temple is by the members of the Hindu Nadar community and no document is available to prove otherwise.
9.The conclusions reached by the Inspector of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board, Tenkasi, are the only source to discredit the case of the plaintiffs. However, the findings of the Inspector of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department would clearly establish the fact that the temple is being administered from time immemorial only by the members of the Hindu Nadar Community and that no one belong to any other community was ever in management of the temple. It is only on the basis of the report of the Inspector to the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Tirunelveli, the later has held that the plaintiffs' claim that the office of Trusteeship as hereditary cannot be accepted.
10.The Deputy Commissioner in the order has stated as follows:
a)Though it was only the members of the Hindu Nadar community in Madathur-Venniyur Village established the temple and purchased the properties apart from conducting kumbabhishekam etc., the administration of the temple is permitted without there being proper accounts and by showing only the minimum income in the accounts.
b)Further, the income from the marriage hall is taken only for the benefit of the Nadar community. Hence, if the hereditary right of the plaintiffs is recognised, there will not be any protection to the temple and its properties.
11.Hence, it is evident that the Joint Commissioner, Tirunelveli, has rejected the contention of the plaintiffs only on the ground that the declaration of plaintiffs' right as hereditary would affect the interest of the temple. It was thereafter the Joint Commissioner considered the scope of Section 6(11) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act and found that there is no Minutes Book available to prove that the temple was under the administration of the Hindu Nadar community in the village from the inception. The Joint Commissioner has further held that only if the income of the temple is protected by bringing the entire income directly to the temple account, the claim of the plaintiffs to declare their hereditary right can be allowed. The Joint Commissioner has also answered the legal position quiet contrary to the principles stated by this Court by a learned Single Judge in the judgment dated 01.08.2001 in A.S.No.340 of 1984. The Commissioner also fell in line with the Joint Commissioner. However, the findings are contrary to the admitted facts as it can be seen from the order.
12.Coming to the judgment of the lower Court, the trial Court also found that the temple is being administered only by the members of the Hindu Nadar community in Madathur-Venniyur Village. However, the trial Court held that this cannot be a sole criteria to bring the plaintiffs within the definition of the hereditary trustee as defined in the Act. Further, the trial Court held that the six members of the community who were shown as plaintiffs, cannot be considered as hereditary trustees of the temple, as they are not the descendants of a common ancestor. The trial Court also has found that the right to hereditary trusteeship cannot be claimed by the members of a particular community especially when the temple administration has been taken over by the department. The trial Court also proceeded to think that the word ?hereditary? indicates succession to an office as a descendant of a man and wife and that the claim of plaintiffs that they are entitled to a declaration of hereditary right is not acceptable since the six plaintiffs belonged to different families and they do not descend from a common ancestor. According to the trial Court, a particular community can never be recognised as having a hereditary right as it is understood in the common parlance. Since the trial Court has found that the plaintiffs have not proved their hereditary trusteeship by satisfying the definition of the term ?hereditary trustee? under the Act, the contention of the appellants were rejected. The trial Court also found that the plaintiffs merely by showing that the administration of the temple was done only by the members of Hindu Nadar community in Madathur-Venniyur Village, they are not entitled to claim that the office of the trusteeship for the temple is hereditary and that therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the declaration as prayed for.
13.The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the authorities as well as the trial Court has not understood the term ?hereditary trustee? as defined under the Act. When it is the specific case of the plaintiffs that the General Body of Madathur-Venniyur Village Hindu Nadar Community are the hereditary trustees entitled to administer the temple, the authorities ought to have declared the office of the trusteeship for the temple as hereditary on the admitted facts and findings recorded. The learned counsel for the appellants relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of A.N.Ramaswami Iyer and others v. The Commissioner, HR & CE (Admn), Madras and another reported in 1975 (2) MLJ 178 wherein this Court has considered the scope of the definition of hereditary trusteeship elaborately. In the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants, earlier judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Muthirula Pillai v. Thyagarajaswami Pillai reported in (1964) I MLJ 230 has also been relied upon. The Division Bench of this Court has held as follows:
?It is said that, in 1926, the appellant was elected by the general body of Koilkudigals as a trustee. On this basis, he claimed that he had acquired a hereditary right to the office of trustee. We are, however, unable to see how that can follow. If the Koilkudigals are deemed to be the hereditary trustees, the mere fact that they comprised a large body of individuals cannot take away that right from them. All of them would be joint trustees. The office will thus be a joint one, the co-trustees forming, as it were, one collective trustee. But if they, for the purpose of convenient management, elected one from amongst themselves as a trustee, it must have been only to facilitate the management of the temple and its properties. Such election by itself cannot confer any exclusive right of trusteeship, much less a hereditary right to trusteeship. Indeed, it would really be the other way about. The appellant, by virtue of his election, can hold office only under the rights created by such election, and that cannot be regarded as in any way creating a hereditary right. The office of trustee, as we said, was a joint one, and it would not be open for the general body to alienate the office in such a way as to create a hereditary right in one amongst themselves.?
14.The above judgment indicates that a large number of persons or body of persons can be considered as joint trustees when they are recognised as persons who are entitled to manage the temple, as a trustee or by an arrangement of nominating one among the members of the community as a trustee to manage a temple. Following the said judgment reported in 1964 I MLJ 230, the Division Bench, in the judgment reported in 1975 (2) MLJ 178 has further clarified the position as follows:
?10. ... On the other hand, the plaintiffs represent the entire community of Brahmins of the village, who have been hereditarily exercising the right of managing and administering the suit temple. The mere fact that they comprise a large body of individuals cannot take away from them the right of hereditary trusteeship. All of them would be co-trustees of the temple. If any of them dies, his right of co-trusteeship would devolve upon his heir. This would be true of every member of the Brahmin community of Ariyanayagipuram at any point of time. Deaths may decrease, and births may increase the number of co-trustees entitled to manage the temple. But the succession to the general body of the trustees of the institution undoubtedly devolves by hereditary right and the circumstance that for efficient administration the general body of trustees has been appointing by election one or more among them to manage the temple does not in any manner detract from their status as joint trustees, nor can it confer any exclusive right of trusteeship, much less a hereditary right of trusteeship upon the person appointed by them.
11.Reference was made in the course of arguments to a ruling of the Supreme Court in Sambandamurthi Mudaliar v. State of Madras [(1970) 2 M.L.J. 58]. That case related to the trusteeship of the Kumaran Koil in Manjokollai village. The temple had been founded 200 years ago by the members of the Senguntha Mudaliar Community of Manjakollai village and ever since its inception, the management of the temple and its affairs was always vested in the community of Senguntha Mudaliars, and no person other than the elected trustee had at any time the right of management and control of the temple. One Sambandamurthi Mudaliar, the appellant in that case, claimed to be the hereditary trustee within the meaning of Section 6(9) of Tamil Nadu Act XIX of 1951. His contention was that according to the usage of the temple, the members of the Senguntha Mudaliar community annually elected the trustee of the temple, and he having been elected as such must be regarded as a hereditary trustee because the office of trustee was ?regulated by usage?, within the meaning of Section 6(9) of the Act. This contention was repelled by the Supreme Court on the ground that the phrase ?regulated by usage? in
section 6 (9) must be construed along with the phrase ?succession to whose office?, and when so construed that part of the definition would only apply where the ordinary rules of succession under the Hindu Law are modified by usage, and succession has to be determined in accordance with the modified rules. If instead of Sambanda-murthi Mudaliar, the person who was elected by the general body of the trustees, the general body of the trustees themselves had in that case claimed hereditary trusteeship, there can be no doubt that the Supreme Court would have recognised their claim because they would clearly fall under the first clause of the definition. Their Lordships also cited with approval Black's Law Dictionary, in which the word "succession" is defined as follows :
"The devolution of title to property under the law of descent and distribution. The right by which one set of men may, by succeeding another set, acquire a property in all the goods, movables, and other chattels of a corporation. The fact of the transmission of the rights, estate, obligations, and charges of a deceased person to his heir or heirs."
Judging the right claimed by the plaintiffs in this case in the light of this definition, there can be no doubt that succession to the right of trusteeship of Sri Venkata-chalapathi Devasthanam devolves hereditarily within the meaning of clause (22) of section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Act XXII of 1959. In other words, the right of co-trusteeship possessed by every member of the Brahmin community of Ariyanayagipuram at any point of time has been devolving from time immemorial on the death of that person on his heir or heirs. We, therefore, reverse, the finding of the trial Court and hold that the Brahmin Mahajanangal of the Village of Ariyanayagipuram, are the hereditary trustees of Sri Venkatachalapathi temple of that village. We may also note, in this connection, the finding of the trial Court at page II of its printed judgment which is in the following words :
"It was, therefore, clear that, in the instant case, the plaintiffs, who succeeded in establishing that there has been an usage recognising all the resident members of the brahmin community as trustees and all of them as entitled to the office of trusteeship and all of them as entitled to be trustees while their forefathers and progenies were also trustees by reason of their residence and age could not be treated as having established that the succession to the office of trusteeship of the Vishnu temple is regulated by usage because the usage is not something which can be reduced to any formula."
It may be noticed that even according to the trial Court, the plaintiffs have succeeded in establishing that there has been a usage recognising the members of the Brahmin community of the village as hereditary trustees of the temple. We confirm this finding. But we, disagree with the later part of the observation of the learned Subordinate judge to the effect that in spite of the plaintiffs succeeding in establishing this usage, they must fail, because "the usage is not something which can be reduced to any formula". It is difficult to accept the assumption of the learned Subordinate Judge that usage is not usage unless it can be reduced to a formula. What he evidently meant was that the Brahmin community is a body Which fluctuates from time to time and cannot, therefore, be regarded as a determinate entity. As we have already observed at the inception, the law of the country has always recognised fluctuating communities as legal personae capable of owning rights. It was, therefore, wrong for the lower Court to have held that the fluctuating character of the community would have the effect of depriving it of its legal rights. We consequently reverse the judgment of the Court below and decree, the plaintiffs' suit as prayed for with costs throughout.
15.The above judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Since the contention of the plaintiffs that the temple is being managed right from its inception by the members of the Hindu Nadar Community of Madathur-Venniyur Village and that no one belong to any other community was ever in management or administration of the temple, the plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration. The learned counsel for the appellants has also relied upon an unreported judgment of this Court in the case of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Madras ? 34 v. Kumaraperumal Nadar (Died) and another in A.S.No.340 of 1984. The facts are identical in the above judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants. The judgment of this Court reported in 1975 (2) MLJ 178 was also followed therein. The learned Additional Government Pleader relied upon the deposition of a witness who was before the Joint Commissioner, Hind Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, wherein he has admitted that the temple was administered with the funds mobilised by the public living in Madathur-Venniyur Village. The findings of the Joint Commissioner as well as the Commissioner was not based on the stray evidence which might be on an erroneous understanding of the real implications. Factually, the case of the plaintiffs that the administration of the temple is done only by the members of the Hindu Nadars in Madathur-Venniyur Village out of the funds collected only from the members of the community has been accepted by the lower Court. Since the authorities of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department and the trial Court has failed to appreciate the actual requirement for establishing the claim of the community as ?hereditary trustee? has not been properly considered by the lower Court, this Court find that the plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration as prayed for declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that the temple known as Shri Subramanya Swamy Temple in Madathur-Venniyur Village is administered by the members of the Hindu Nadar Community in Madathur-Venniyur Village and that the succession to the office of trusteeship is hereditary in the sense that the General Body of Hindu Nadar Community of Madathur-Venniyur Village are entitled to elect the trustees for administering the temple viz., Shri Subramanya Swamy Temple. This appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree dated 03.02.2006 made in O.S.No.86 of 2004 is set aside and the suit in O.S.No.86 of 2004, on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Tenkasi, is decreed as prayed for. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
To
1.The Additional Sub Court, Tenkasi
2.The Section Officer, Vernacular Records, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..