''4. From the aforesaid facts it becomes clear that the 4th respondent Trust came into existence in the year 1995 Prior to the Trust coming into force, admittedly, the temple in question is there from time immemorial The question whether the temple belongs to the petitioner's family, whether the petitioner is a hereditary Archak of the temple in question, whether the Trust has any right over the hundi amount and whether they have a right to manage the affairs of the temple are all matters which cannot be decided either on a representation made by a respective party before the Dy Commissioner or by this Court in proceedings under 226 of the Constitution of India. If the temple in question is a Muzurai Institution, it is covered by the provisions of Mysore Religious and Charitable Institutions Act, 1927 and the rights of the parties have to be agitated under the provisions of the said act before a Forum prescribed under the said act Therefore, the Dy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to go into those questions on the basis of a representation made by the parties Similarly, the question whether the petitioner is a hereditary Archak of the temple not, whether he has the requisite qualification to be appointed as a Archak of the temple or not, are all matters which are again covered under the aforesaid act Even otherwise, it is open to the petitioner to establish his right to the office of the Archakship by approaching a competent civil court In fact it is submitted, the petitioner has also filed a suit OS No.79/01 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr Dn), Maddur for cancellation of the trust dated 15.11.95 and that the said trust does not bind the petitioner in any manner whatsoever and for an injunction restraining the trustees of the trust from interfering with the smooth functioning of the temple When the hundi amount has been removed by the Tahasildar and has been kept in the bank deposit, unless these questions are decided, the question of returning the said amount to the 4th respondent
