IMPORTANT POINT
The suit Temple is a religious institution as defined in Section 6(20) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act 1957, and is not a private temple belonging to Appellants family as the presumption that the temple is a "public temple" belonging to respondents is not rebutted.

Headnote:(i) Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959-Sections 6(20), 63(a), 69, 70 -Suit under Section 70-Suit temple a religious institution as defined in Section 6(20) of the Act-Is it a "private temple" belonging to Appellants family or a Public Temple of respondent-2 ?-Trial Court holding it a private Temple-High Court in appeal and LPA concurrently found it to be a "Public Temple"-Appeal against to Supreme Court-Whether Temples of the Madurai Veerasami and 18 Padi Karupannasami, Temple (suit temples) are private temples of the appellants family or are public temples belonging to second respondent Temple Meenakshi Sundereswaran Temple, Madurai or a sub temple belonging to it as claimed by respondents? (Public Temple)-Appeal dismissed.
       Held : The examination made by the trial court has been very thorough on entire material placed before it in the shape of oral and the documentary evidence but its conclusions on many of them or its construction of the documents appear to be faulty as found by the First Appellate Court which equally thoroughly examined the matter and came to the contrary conclusion that the suit temple is not a private temple which stood affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court on an independent examination of the matter. (Para 9)
       The fact that temple is situate on poramboke land cannot be seriously disputed; that the origin of the temple is not known; that its location is next to the famous Meenakshi Amman Temple; that the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants was not enough to hold the temple and the properties owned by it belong to the plaintiffs-appellants. The documentary evidence made available to the court with reference to the suit in O.S. No. 278/1866. O.S. No. 511/ 1884 and Ex. A-7, which is described as a deed of loan executed on 17.3.1888 by Muthayee alias Meenakshi Ayi. It is not clear from the judgments as to who deposed on behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants and who deposed on behalf of the defendants-respondents and even after careful perusal of the entire judgment no conclusion can be drawn as to in what capacity the ancestors of the plaintiffs-appellants claimed enjoyment of the suit land. There is a specific mention of the claim of the plaintiffs-appellants in the suit that the suit land belonged to the plaintiffs-temple. The ownership of the land is thus conceded to the temple and not claimed by the plaintiffs and it was not made clear as to who the plaintiffs were. In regard to O.S.No.511/1884, a reference to the plaint would reveal that it was a suit filed by two plaintiffs described as Priest/Priestess of the Padhinettampadi Karuppannasamy Temple and situate at Kizhathirai Street, Madurai and Veerasamy Pillaiyar Temple, Madurai, the Division Bench clearly found that the claim made in the suit was with regard to possession and enjoyment and not title or ownership and the judgment was not made available in that particular case and the decree indicated the date of the judgment to be 11.4.1885 in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants restraining the defendants-respondents by entering into the suit property in order to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiffs-appellants and also directing the defendants-respondents to pay Rs. 20/- to the plaintiffs -appellants for having demolished the wall unlawfully and also directing to pay the costs to the plaintiffs-appellants. Exhibit A-7, which is dated 17.3.1888, was executed by one of the ancestors of the plaintiffs -appellants and in order to construct a pucca building of the Sri Meenakshi Sundereswarar Temple, the wife of the temple Priest took a loan of Rs. 500/- from one Chackarabani Chettiar. Therefore, this document can hardly throw any light on the character of the suit temple. The judgment in O.S. No. 577 of 1888 is also useful as in that judgment there is only reference to certain description and nothing of any importance on the question whether the temple was a public or private temple. The deed of partition dated 27.5.1897 indicates that certain rights are available to the plaintiffs- appellants family in the suit temple in offering pooja and the right to apportionment of the offerings and nothing more. Both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench strongly relied upon the evidence tendered by Appavoo Pillai, who was the second petitioner in the case before the Deputy Commissioner and he did not depose in the suit but died during the pendency of the suit. In these circumstances, reliance was placed on the statements made by him before the Deputy Commissioner which is to the effect that the plaintiffs-appellants did not buy the same from anyone and since his ancestors were enjoying, it had come to be enjoyed by them. He admitted that the house taxes were paid in his capacity as trustee. The public could offer worship at the temple only with their permission and they had never refused such permission at any time. The public also used to carry the sandal pot from the temple and each individual should pay 10 annas for the same. While the devotees come for such pooja, they used to collect fees from them which would be taken away by them. The tax had not been levied on their original names but only as Manager of the trustee or only in that capacity they had collected the rents. Exhibits A-41 to A-47 did not pertain to the temple. The site mentioned in Exs.A-49, 50, 51 and 52 did not pertain to the suit site of the temple but were lying in front of the suit temple and the aforesaid site and also the site found in Ex.A-53 were not that of the temple but adjoining it. This evidence is fatal to the case of the plaintiffs-appellants and, therefore, the High Court could firmly come to the conclusion that the presumption that the temple is a public temple is not rebutted. In reaching this conclusion, when on questions of fact and on construction of the documents, none of which can be treated to be documents of title, but only to indicate the description of the property or the nature of possession and enjoyment of the property thereof alone has been considered, we think there is hardly anything for this Court to interfere with such orders. The Division Bench as well as learned Single Judge have each independently applied their mind to the relevant documents and have arrived at identical conclusions. Indeed the Division Bench made very detailed analysis of the judgments rendered in the suits referred to and also to the deed of partition to ascertain the rights of the plaintiffs-appellants. The anxiety shown by the High Court will clearly indicate that even if there was a wee-bit of material before the court the same would have been held in their favour. We have also independently examined the evidence on record in the matter and we think there is no substance in this appeal. The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no orders as to costs. (Paras 13, 14, 15 and 16)
       (ii) Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959-Section 70-Suit for declaration that suit Temple is a private temple of the appellants family-Whether before filing suit notice u/s 80 CPC is necessary ?-Single Judge of High Court holding it was necessary-D.B. in LPA holding it was not necessary-Appeal to Supreme Court -Question not considered.

JUDGMENT

Rajendra Babu, J.-This appeal by special leave is against the judgment in Letters Patent Appeal No. 206 of 1992 on the file of the High Court of Madras. The question raised in this appeal is as to whether the temples of the Madurai Veerasami and 18 Padi Karupannasami Temple, are private temples of the appellants family or they belong to the second respondent temple Meenakshi Sundereswaran Temple, Madurai or a sub-temple belonging to it as claimed by respondents.

2. The appellants claim that the two shrines of Madurai Veerasami and 18 Padi Karupannasami Temple are situate in a premises bearing Door No. 52, East Chitrai Street, Madurai, that adjoining these temples are two shops in premises bearing Door Nos. 51 and 53; that they are private temples and are in their possession and enjoyment as such; that though they were situate in paramboke lands of the Government, these lands on which the temple situate are recognised as private lands of the appellants in the proceedings of the Collector dated 1.9.1941 and even earlier: that the origin of the temple is lost in antiquity: that as far as they could trace the records their great great grand mother Meenakshi Ayi had come to be in the possession and enjoyment of the temple through her father who was a Pujari of the temple from about 100 years now; that the litigation raised as early as in 1884 ended in her favour; that there are several documents to show that she constructed a pucca building which was only thatched sheds by raising loans and was in possession and enjoyment of them as her private temples; that even now the members of the appellants alone worship the deities in the temples.

3. The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Depart ment, Madras, issued a notice on 26.2.1971 calling upon the appellants to get a declaration that the suit temple is a private temple as the appellants resisted his move to treat it as a public temple . The appellants filed an application in O.A. No. 23 of 1971 before the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (AIM) Department, Madurai under Section 63(a) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 [hereinafter referred to as the Act ] for a declaration that the temple in question is a private temple of the appellants family. The second respondent was impleaded on its application and contended that these temples formed part of it and it is one of its subsidiary temples. The Deputy Commissioner by an order made on 24.1.1973 allowed the application holding that the temple is a private temple of the appellants. Against that order second respondent preferred an appeal under Section 69 of the Act and the first respondent, after hearing both the parties, made an order on 24.11.1977 allowing the appeal by holding that the temple in question belonged to the second respondent and is a public temple . Against that order, the appellants filed a suit in O.S. No. 267 of 1978 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Madurai, as provided under Section 70 of the Act, inter alia, seeking to grant a declaration that the suit temple is a private temple of the appellants and for an injunction to restrain the respondents to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the temple. After trial the Subordinate Judge decreed the suit holding the suit temple is private temple of the appellants. Against that judgment two appeals were preferred in A.S. No. 554 of 1982 and A.S. No. 56 of 1984 on the file of the High Court of Madras. The High Court by order dated 6.11.1992 allowed both the appeals on the ground that firstly the suit was not maintainable for want of issue of a notice and secondly, on merits, it was held that the suit temple is a public temple belonging to the second respondent. Against the said judgment and decree the Letters Patent Appeal No. 206 of 1992 was filed. The said appeal has now been dismissed holding that the temple in question is a public t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 1250

Cases Referred (1)