IMPORTANT POINT
The findings on offerings in the temple have been recorded by proper application of the declaration made in the scheme suit as modified from time to time, so there is no substance in this appeal to interfere with said concurrent findings.

Headnote:Hindu Religious Charitable Endowments Act, 1950-Scheme of administration of offerings in the temple finalised by High Court in LPA No. 124/59-Dispute as to collection of offerings in Hundial by the Appellant-Denied by all the three Courts-Appeal to Supreme Court-Is there any substance in appeal? (No)-Appeal dismissed.
Held : Shri K.R. Choudhary, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant, submitted that the respondent is generally entitled to take all offerings in cash made within the temple precincts in open cups and plates, but that he shall not be so entitled to appropriate for his own use such cash offerings as are made by worshippers for some other specific or general purpose, stipulated in that form, and that as was held in the earlier suit, if Hundial is installed outside the temple precincts or even inside the temple precincts but specifically made clear that it would be appropriated that it is only for offerings for specific or general purpose, the Hundial could be installed and not otherwise. Shri K. Ramamurthi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent, submitted that the Temple has hardly any income as is expressly admitted by the appellant himself in the course of written statement. No salary is paid to the respondent. However, he has to perform the pooja in accordance with the Shastras applicable to the Temple, which involve good deal of expenditure apart from the fact that the respondent has to sustain himself and, therefore, he needs funds which are offered by the devotees and such offerings are made within the Temple and in those circumstances in the scheme suit it was made clear that he is entitled to take those offerings. If the Hundial is installed within the temple precincts, the effect would be that instead of giving offerings to Archaka, the offerings would be made in the Hundial and it will not be possible to find out whether it is for any specific or general purpose such offerings have been made. It was in those circumstances, the Trial Court, the First Appellate Court and the High Court have concurrently come to the conclusion that the offerings could not have been collected in Hundial by the appellant. Undoubtedly as had been done on the previous occasion Hundial can be kept for any specific purpose as made clear in the scheme and that right is in no way affected by the decree affirmed by the High Court. Therefore, the findings having been recorded by proper application of the declaration made in the scheme suit as modified from time to time, we find no substance in this appeal. The same shall stand dismissed. No costs. (Paras 11, 12 and 13)

JUDGMENT

Rajendra Babu, J.-Respondent brought a suit for injunction to restrain the appellant from installing Hundi in the temple precincts of Hayagriver Temple attached to Devanathaswamy Temple of Thiruvendhipuram to receive cash offerings to direct the appellant to pay him the cost of the suit and to grant all other just and necessary reliefs.

2. In respect of the subject-matter of the suit, there had been earlier litigation too. When the matter reached the High Court in LPA No. 124/59, a scheme was framed by the High Court, which was subsequently modified whereby providing that the Archaka shall be generally entitled to take all offerings in cash made within the temple precincts in open cups and plates, but that he shall not be entitled to appropriate for his own use such cash offerings as are made by worshippers for some other specific or general purpose stipulated in that form. It was stated that as per the terms of this clause, in general, all cash offerings made within the temple precincts can be appropriated by the Archaka unless the offerings are for any other specific or general purpose stipulated, that is, either for the Temple or to perform any festival or for any express purpose. It was contended that this clause does not authorise or give rise to appellant to instal any Hundi to collect the general offerings and that, if the Hundial is installed, the sevarthis would put their general offerings as well, only in the Hundial and the respondent will be deprived of his earnings, which he was legally entitled to. It was also pleaded that the respondent is not paid any salary by the Temple authority. It was disclosed in the plaint that there were several sannidhis in the Temple like Devanathar Sannidhi, Thaayar Sannidhi, Desikar Sannidhi and Hayagriver Sannidhi. In Sannidhis, pooja and araadhana have to be performed simultaneously. Since the respondent is the only Archaka-cum-Sthanika in the Temple, he has to employ several persons for pooja and araadhana in various Sannidhis and he has to pay and feed all of them. In the Hayagriver shrine and the Temple in the hill top which is attached to the appellant Temple, till now no Hundial is installed and the entire cash offerings is taken only by the respondent.

3. On 26.9.1988, the appellant attempted to instal a Hundial in the said temple precincts contrary to the terms of the scheme and this was objected to by the respondent. In the meanwhile, there was a panchayat to be conducted within a week and appellant served two notices on the respondent on 27.9.1988 stating the reasons why the Hundial was to be placed. Pursuant thereto, the suit has been filed for permanent injunction as stated earlier.

4. Apart from raising certain objections as to the jurisdiction of the court, on merits it was stated that the respondent cannot claim to be a hereditary Archaka inasmuch as the system of hereditary succession in Temple service has been abolished in the State of Tamil Nadu and it was also contended that no special or peculiar privilege or status has been clothed to him either under the Hindu Religious Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) or in the scheme of administration finalised by the High Court in LPA No. 124/59 and that though the Temple is an important Temple, it is financially very poor. It has various immovable and movable properties but on account of tenancy laws in force it is not getting necessary income. Under the scheme framed by the High Court, all the immovable and movable properties vest in the Executive Authority of the Temple. However, it is admitted that the jewellery and clothes are in the custody of the Archaka for adorning of Moolavar and Uthsavar deities. The valuable jewels are kept in a separate strong room in triple lock system in the Temple. It was contended that there is already a Thiruppani Hundial inside the main Temple. It was also contended that in spite of the scheme framed by the High Court, th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 1207

IMPORTANT POINTThe findings on offerings in the temple have been recorded by proper application of the declaration made in the scheme suit as modified from time to time, so there is no substance in this appeal to interfere with said concurrent findings.

IMPORTANT POINT
The findings on offerings in the temple have been recorded by proper application of the declaration made in the scheme suit as modified from time to time, so there is no substance in this appeal to interfere with said concurrent findings.