2001 Supreme(SC) 1102

2001(6) Supreme 93
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madras High Court)
S. Rajendra Babu & Shivaraj V. Patil, JJ.
M.S.V. Raja & Anr. -Appellants
versus
Seeni Thevar & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2417 of 1992
With
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19184 of 2000
Decided on 14-8-2001
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Mr. K. Parasaran and Mr. Bhimrao N. Naik, Sr. Advocates, Mr. B. Ravi Raja, Mr. V. Balachandran and Mr. A.T.M. Sampath, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mr. K. Ramamurthy, Sr. Advocate, Mr. P.N. Ramalingam, Mr. V. Krishnamurthy and Ms. Seita Vaidyalingam, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINTS
The suit temple is a public temple but Rajus have been administering it. However, Rajus cannot prevent Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department from exercising legal powers to administer temple. But Pandarams cannot claim right to worship according to their usage in the temple.

Headnote:Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959-Section 63(b)-Dispute about administration and management about Arulingu Mariamman Temple at Rajapalayam-Rajus claiming as heriditary trustees-No interference of H.R. & C.E. Department-Once 7 Pandarams claimed as heriditary trustees and poojaries-Rejected by department and Court-Department issued notice on 16.5.75 inviting applications from General Public for appointment of additional Trustees-Rajus filed suit claiming fundamental rights governed by Art. 26 of Constitution-Suit decreed-Department failed in first appeal but succeeded in second appeal-Appeal against to Supreme Court by Rajus-Second appeal against declaration and injunction granted to respondents that temple is a Hindu Public Temple-Whether suit Temple is a Public Temple? (No)-Whether suit temple has been under the management and Administration of the appellants? (Yes) Whether the relief of permanent injunction so as to restrain the appellants from interfering with the worship/pooja by Pandarams as per their usage could be granted? (No)-Effect-Department can interfere but Pandarams cannot-(C.P.C. 1908-Sections 11 and 100 and Constitution of India-Art. 26).

       Held : This Court in T.V. Mahalinga Iyer v. State of Madras and Another [(1981) 1 SCC 445] referring to the very provisions of the Act has held that so far as Tamil Nadu is concerned there is initial presumption that a temple is a public one, it being up to the party, who claims that it is a private temple, to establish that fact affirmatively. Of course, this initial presumption must be rebutted by clinching testimony in order to establish that a temple is a private temple. In the same judgment the very situation of temple on Government property was also taken as a piece of evidence in support of a public temple. In the case on hand, as already stated above, there was neither pleading nor clinching evidence as to who founded the temple and as to how the temple belonged to the appellants. It is also on record that the temple was constructed on paramokh land. Under the circumstances, it is clear that the appellants have failed to establish that the denomination of Rajus constructed the temple. Thus, when both the courts below concurrently erred in recording a finding with no evidence to support that the suit temple belonged to religious denomination of Rajus and not a public temple, the High Court was right in upsetting such finding. In our view the appellants have miserably failed to rebut the initial presumption that it is a public temple. Hence we agree with the High Court in recording a finding that the suit temple is a public temple.(Para 11)

       Held however : Even the learned counsel for the respondents before the High Court contended that the courts below had wrongly drawn inference that temple was constructed by Rajus from the mere management of the suit temple by them for several decades. We are of the view that the appellants had not lost the right of management of the suit temple before the Constitution came into force. In this view, we hold that the appellants have been in the management of the suit temple all along. But this right of management of the appellants shall not prevent the Department from exercising such powers, which are conferred upon them by law in regard to the administration of the temple. It may also be added that in the suit O.S. No. 100 of 1975 filed by the appellants themselves it is held so and which part of the decree was not challenged by the appellants. (Para 14)

       Held further : We have already stated above that the pandarams in earlier litigations lost their claim that they were hereditary trustees or hereditary poojaries of the temple in O.A. No. 76/73 as well as OS. No. 13/76 upto to the High Court. The judgment of the High Court negativing the claim of the pandarams has attained finality. A plain reading of the underlined portions of the reliefs extracted above shows that these reliefs were claimed at the instance of pandarams and for their benefit. Since pandarams could not re-agitate having lost earlier, these reliefs are claimed in the suit. In other words, what could not be achieved by the pandarams directly, the plaintiffs in the suit wanted to achieve them at their instance indirectly. This apart, there is no pleading and there are no averments in the plaint as to what was the usage of pandarams for worship in poojas. Further, neither there was an issue raised in the suit nor evidence was led in support of the same. This being the position, the High Court for the first time, in the second appeal could not have granted this relief at all. The High Court in the impugned judgment has decreed the suit of the plaintiffs as prayed for, which includes this relief also. Hence, we have no hesitation to hold that relief of injunction could not have been granted to the plaintiffs. (Para 16)

       After holding suit was not barred by principles of res judicata. (Para 17)

       And second appeal was decided on substantial question of law. (Para 18)

        Held finally : In the result for the reasons stated above, we hold that the suit temple is a public temple. The management of the suit temple has been with religious denomination of Rajus. However, this right of management of the appellants shall not prevent the Department from exercising such powers, which are conferred upon them by law in regard to the administration of the temple. The relief of declaration and injunction so far it relates to worship in pooja according to usage by Pandarams in the temple is rejected. This appeal and special leave petition stand disposed of in the above terms. No orders as to costs. (Para 19)