by virtue of the provisions of Amendment of Act 2/1971 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Amendment Act, 1959. Therefore, the Courts below have rightly found that even as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, the plaintiff cannot claim any immemorial right in the preparation and selling of prasadam in his capacity as a Suyambugee of the temple. At the best, as rightly found by the Courts below, the right given to the plaintiff's father with reference to the preparation and selling of Prasadam in his capacity as Suyambugee under the compromise decree can only be taken as a concession extended to him for his service as a Suyambugee in the temple. Nothing more than that can be extended to the plaintiff's father or to the plaintiff and the defendants 2 & 3 with reference to the preparation and selling of Prasadam at the Madapalli of the temple, particularly, as if the same is a hereditary and immemorial right conferred on the plaintiff's family. The compromise decree just regulates only the concession conferred on the plaintiff's father on the above said subject and therefore, the contention put forth by the plaintiff's counsel that the first defendant is not entitled to regulate the preparation and selling of Prasadam at the Madapalli of the temple by calling for the public auction of the same as such cannot countenanced. In the light of the above discussions, the findings of the Courts below declining the reliefs sought for by the plaintiff are found to be in accordance with law and also, as per the terms of the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.385 of 34 and do not call for any interference.
