approving the same. As a matter of fact, on a close reading of the entire settlement / donation deed, it would be clear that, the donor family will have one trustee as a Member and the rest will be from among the devotees and the prominent members of the communities. In that view of the matter, no exception can be taken for the decision of the Trial Court in setting aside the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner and allowing the suit filed by the plaintiff. However, at the same time, the Trial Court erred in holding that, so long as the kattalais are performed, the hereditary trustee alone can manage. The same is not in tune with the original dedication / intention of the donor. The purpose of dedication, the manner of administration and the procedure laid down by the donor should be implemented to the extent possible. Therefore, the Trial Court while allowing the prayer for hereditary trusteeship in respect of plaintiff, ought to have seen that, as per the original Scheme of the things contained in Ex.A49 , there should be thirteen trustees or at least minimum of five trustees to manage/oversee the endowments. In that view of the matter, I answer the issue no. (i) that, the plaintiff is entitled to be declared as hereditary trustee of Arulmigu Soletty Lakshmana Chetty Charities Attached to Aathikesava Perumal Arulmigu Koorathalwar Temple, Kooram Village, Kancheepuram Taluk, Chengelpattu
