1. Dispute regarding whether a religious institution is a temple as defined under Section 2(1) of the Madras Temple Entry Authorization Act, 1947. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1961 Supreme(SC) 405
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.
His Holiness Sri Vishwothama Thirtha Swamiar of Sode Mutt and others, Appellants
Versus
State of Mysore and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 84 of 1959, dated 18th December 1961.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. V. Vishwanatha Sastri, Senior Advocate (Mr. R. Gopalakrishnan, Advocate, with him), for Appellants; M/s. B. R. L. Iyengar and T. M. Sen, Advocates, for Respondent No. 1.
Advocates:
A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, B.R.L.Iyengar, R.GOPAL KRISHNAN, T.M.SEN
A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, B.R.L.Iyengar, R.GOPAL KRISHNAN, T.M.SEN
In the absence of a deed of endowment, long and uninterrupted public use of a shrine without restriction, coupled with the acceptance of public offerings and contributions, constitutes strong evidence that the institution is a public temple dedicated to the community as a matter of right.
Headnote:(A) Madras Temple Entry Authorization Act, 1947 - Section 2(1) - Definition of "temple" - Place of public religious worship - Determination of whether a shrine is a public temple or a private shrine appurtenant to a religious institution - In the absence of a deed of endowment, long and uninterrupted public use without restriction is cogent evidence that the institution was dedicated to the public and is used by them as a matter of right. (Paras 15, 19, 21)
(B) Evidence of Public Dedication - The practice of managers collecting contributions from devotees across the country to meet the expenses of worship and temple maintenance is clear proof that such devotees have a right to visit and worship at the institution. (Para 18)
(C) Private vs. Public Temple - While the mere fact that pilgrims visit a temple does not always prove it is public, in the absence of evidence that the temple is private, long-term unrestricted access by the public is strong evidence of public dedication. (Para 20)
(D) Nature of Institution - A system where the management of the institution rotates among different heads and there is no permanent independent head indicates that the institution is a temple rather than a religious academy or a shrine appurtenant to one. (Para 22)
Facts of the case:
A dispute arose regarding whether a specific shrine was a "temple" as defined under the relevant Act. The government had declared the shrine to be a temple, which was challenged by the heads of several religious institutions who contended that the shrine was a private place of worship intended only for specific disciples and was appurtenant to a religious academy. The trial court and the High Court had dismissed the suit, holding that the shrine was indeed a public temple.
Findings of Court:
The shrine is a temple within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the Act as it is a place dedicated to the public and used by them as a place of public religious worship.
Issues: Whether the shrine in question constitutes a "temple" under Section 2(1) of the Act, specifically whether it is a place of public religious worship used as of right by the community.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that where no original deed of endowment is available, proof of long and uninterrupted user is the primary evidence to determine the nature of the dedication. The fact that a large number of pilgrims from across the country visit the shrine, make offerings, and have never been refused entry, combined with the acceptance of state aid and public contributions, leads to the reasonable inference that the shrine is a public temple.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the institution is a private shrine intended for specific disciples or a public temple where the community worships as a matter of right. (Para 8 , 9 , 14 )
3. Public contributions, unrestricted access, and the absence of a permanent head indicate the institution is a public temple rather than a private shrine. (Para 10 , 16 , 18 , 19 , 22 )
4. Long, uninterrupted public use without restraint, absent evidence of private dedication, constitutes sufficient proof that a temple is dedicated to the public. (Para 20 , 21 )
5. Appeal dismissed; the institution is held to be a temple within the meaning of the Act. (Para 24 )
6. How is a temple's status as a public or private institution determined when no endowment deed exists?
In the absence of a deed of endowment, the nature of dedication is determined by other admissible materials. Proof of long and uninterrupted public use without let or hindrance is cogent evidence that the foundation was for the public's benefit. (Para 21 )
7. Does the fact that worshippers are not turned away from a temple automatically make it a public temple?
Not necessarily. If evidence shows the temple was acquired by a grant to an individual or family and treated as private property, the mere fact that worshippers are welcome does not deprive the family of private ownership. (Para 20 )
8. Does an institution's status as being appurtenant to a Mutt preclude it from being a temple under the Madras Temple Entry Authorization Act, 1947?
No. An institution can be appurtenant to a Mutt and still be a temple under the Act if the Hindu public has a right to worship there. (Para 23 )
9. What evidence suggests an institution is a public temple rather than a private Mutt?
Evidence such as the absence of a permanent head, a rotational management system, and the collection of contributions from devotees across the country indicates a public institution. (Para 18 , 22 )
Judgement
RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J. : The only question for determination in this appeal on a certificate granted by the Madras High Court is whether what has been described in the plaint as Shri Krishna Mutt in Shivalli village, in South Kanara District, is a temple as defined in S. 2 (1) of the Madras Temple Entry Authorization Act, 1947 (Madras Act V of 1947), hereinafter called the Act. Sub-section (1) of S. 2 of the Act reads:
" temple means a place, by whatever name known, which is dedicated to, or for the benefit of, or used as of right by, the Hindu community or any section thereof, as a place of public religious worship, and includes subsidiary shrines and mantapams attached to such place;"
2. The Government of Madras, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under S. 6 of the Act, decided on June 3, 1948, that Shri Krishna Mutt was a temple. The plaintiffs, who represent the heads of six of the eight mutts established at Udipi by Shri Madvacharya, instituted the suit for declaration that the Shri Krishan Mutt (not one of the eight mutts) was not such a temple and for the setting aside of the order of the Government of Madras. The heads of the other two mutts were impleaded as defendants Nos. 2 and 3. The State of Madras is defendant No. 1.
3. The State of Madras alone contested the suit and stated that the Shri Krishan Mutt was a temple as defined in the Act. The Trial Court and the High Court held in favour of the defendant s contention with the result that, the plaintiff s suit stood dismissed. The plaintiffs have, therefore, come up in appeal.
4. The case of the plaintiffs-appellants as disclosed in the plaint may first be stated. The great Saint and Savant Shri Madvacharya established the Mutt at Udipi in South Kanara District, for the propagation of the Dwaita system of thought. He himself resided there. He initiated, eight disciples and thus originated the Astha Mutts (eight mutts) of Udipi. These disciples had to reside in the mutts and engage themselves in the study and propagation of learning.
5. The way in which the image of Shri Krishna was installed in the Mutt is described thus:
"That the Shri Madva Vijaya , the life history of the great teacher has it, that the Shri Krishna s image was acquired from a heap of Gopi Chandan from Dwarka brought by the sailors of a native craft which got stranded near Malpe where the teacher used to go every morning for his ablutions and tapas. Tradition has it that the image is the same that had been worshipped by Rukmini at Dwarka in prehistoric days. The image was consecrated and installed by the great teacher in his mutt at Udipi and he began to worship it. This according to history and tradition is the origin of what came to be called popularly the Shri Krishna Mutt at Udipi."
Shri Madvacharya, who installed the consecrated idol in a shrine of his Mutt, worshipped it during his life-time and ordained that the worship be continued by one or other of his eight disciples. In order to regularise the worship of Shri Krishna and to give equal opportunities to the right disciples, it was arranged that the worship be conducted by each of the disciples by rotation (pariyayam). Worship has continued according to this system for the several centuries that the Shrine has been in existence. The head of each of the eight mutts conducts the worship for a period of two years. During this period he occupies the Gadi or the seat of Shri Madvacharya and is called the Pariyayam Swami.
6. The other seven heads of the mutts, when free from the duty of worshipping the image of Shri Krishna, began to take their abode in the vicinity of the Mutt and thus came into existence the eight independent Mutts, though the main Mutt started by Shri Madvacharya, who consecrated and installed the Shri Krishna image, continued as the Shir Krishna Mutt of Udipi.
7. The Pariyayam Swami meets the expenses of the worship and other incidental expenses from the income of his own Mutt and the income of the Shri Krishna Mu
