IMPORTANT POINT
To establish a "religious denomination" common faith of community should be based on religion and in that they should have common religious tenets and basic cord which connects them should be religion and not merely consideration of caste or community or societal status.

Headnote:Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959-Section 107-Constitution of India-Article 26-Suit for declaration that suit temple was a denominational temple and defendants had no jurisdiction to appoint third defendant as fit person-Suit decreed by trial Court-Decree set aside in 1st appeal and confirmed by High Court in second appeal-Appeal-Words "religious denomination" must satisfy three requirements-Common faith of community should be based on religion and in that they should have common religious tenets and basic cord which connects them should be religion and not merely consideration of caste or community or societal status-Concurrent fact findings by 1st appellate Court and High Court that Vellala Community was not shown to be a distinct religious denomination, group or sect or that they had established the temple in question-Appellant were found estopped by their conduct from contending that suit temple was a denominational one-No interference was called for.
Held : It is settled position in law, having regard to the various decisions of this Court that the words "religious denomination" take their colour from the word religion . The expression "religious denomination" must satisfy three requirements - (1) it must be collection of individuals who have a system of belief or doctrine which they regard as conducive to their spiritual well-being, i.e., a common faith; (2) a common organisation; and (3) designation of a distinctive name. It necessarily follows that the common faith of the community should be based on religion and in that they should have common religious tenets and the basic cord which connects them, should be religion and not merely considerations of caste of community or societal status. On the basis of the evidence placed on record, the first appellate court as well as the High Court found that Vellala Community is not shown to be a distinct religious denomination, group or sect so as to be covered by Article 26 of the Constitution. Further, it was necessary for the plaintiffs to establish their claim in respect of the temple that the said denomination group has established and is maintaining and administering the suit temple to take the protection of Article 26 of the Constitution and Section 107 of the Act. (Para 8)

JUDGMENT

Shivaraj V. Patil, J.-The appellants filed suit for declaration that the suit temple is a denominational temple and that the defendants 1 and 2 have no jurisdiction to appoint the third defendant as fit person. The trial Court decreed the suit. The first appellate court reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the suit. The High Court in second appeal upheld the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court.

2. The High Court in the impugned judgment has narrated the facts in sufficient details based on the pleadings of the parties and the material that was placed on record. It is not necessary to state them again. However, to the extent they are relevant and necessary in the light of the contentions advanced on behalf of the parties, we notice them hereunder.

3. The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court was that the first plaintiff is a denominational temple entitled to exemption as provided under Article 26 of the Constitution of India and Section 107 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (for short the Act ); the temple is in Nalloor village and is known as Sree Uchini Makali Amman Temple, built on an extent of 17 cents in S.No. 1593 and that the entire extent is owned by the Vellala Community of Marthandam. The Vellalas residing in Marthandam are a collection of individuals professing Hindu faith; the ancestors of the members of the community constituting corporate body founded the temple in the land purchased by the members of Vellala Community. The plaintiff further claimed that the members of Vellala Community observed special religious practices and beliefs which are integral part of their religion and that the front mandappam of the Sanctorium is open to access only to members of their community and none-else. Outsiders can offer worship from the outer compound.

4. The first defendant filed written statement contending that the first plaintiff-temple is a public religious institution under the control of HR & CE Department; it was brought under the control of the Department in the year 1965; the origin of the temple or the name of its founder is not known; the properties owned by the temple stand in its name; an extent in S.No. 1593 has been leased out for a cinema theatre and the rent due forms the main source of income for the temple; the public also contribute in the hundiyal kept in the temple; the temple is not a denominational as claimed by the plaintiffs. It is the further case of the first defendant that the Department has been appointing non-hereditary trustees for the temple and the management vests with the trustees so appointed from time to time by the Department. In the year 1965 when the temple was brought under its control, the Department called for objections for appointment of non-hereditary trustees and there was no objection to the proposal and regular applications were invited for appointment of non-hereditary trustees. Five persons including Padmanabha Pillai and Subramania Pillai (plaintiffs 2 and 3) volunteered for the appointment; the Area Committee by its resolution dated 31-1-1966 appointed those persons as non-hereditary trustees; further in a special meeting convened by the Inspector of the Department, one Manickavasakam Pillai was elected as Chairman of the Board of trustees and the said resolution was approved by the Assistant Commissioner (defendant No. 2) by his order dated 7-3-1966. After the expiry of the tenure of office of those persons, fresh notices were issued calling for applications from desiring persons to be appointed as non-hereditary trustees to fill up vacancies in the Board. Plaintiffs 2 to 5 were estopped by their conduct from contending that the suit temple is a denominational one and that the plaintiffs have no inherent right to be in management of the said temple.

5. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence let in, in support of their respective c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 680

IMPORTANT POINTTo establish a "religious denomination" common faith of community should be based on religion and in that they should have common religious tenets and basic cord which connects them should be religion and not merely consideration of caste or community or societal status.

Cases Referred (4)

IMPORTANT POINT
To establish a "religious denomination" common faith of community should be based on religion and in that they should have common religious tenets and basic cord which connects them should be religion and not merely consideration of caste or community or societal status.