Judgment

SHINGHAL, J. - (with Ray C.J.I.):- This appeal by special leave arises out of the judgment of the High Court of Mysore dated August 30, 1968, upholding the order of District Judge, South Kanara, dated November 9, 1956. By that order the District Judge set aside the decision of the Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras hereinafter referred to as the Board, that the institution known as Sri Manjunatha temple at Dharmasthal, Puttur Taluk, South Kanara district, was a temple as defined in Cl. (12) of S. 9 of the Madras Hindu Religious Fendowments Act, 1926 (Madras Act II of 1927), hereinafter referred to as the Act. The Commissioner under the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act feels aggrieved because the impugned judgment has the effect of taking the temple out of th control provided by the Act. The respondent in this appeal was the "supplemental petitioner before the District Judge and was brought on record on the death of Manjayya Hegde who was the original petitioner in the petition under sub-s. (2) of Section 84 of the Act.

2. The controversy relates to the Manjunatha temple, in Dharmasthal, which is now the name of a village in Belthangady taluk of South Kanara district of Tamil Nadu. The original name of the village was Mallarmadi. The locality in which the temple is situated was called Kukya Kudume, but it came to be known as Dharmasthal after the visit of Sri Vadiraja Swamiar of Sode Mutt, Udipi, in the 16th century, to which reference will be made in a while.

3. It is not in dispute that, even according to the Heggade, Dharmasthal has a number of institutions including the following main institutions.-

1. Nelleyadi Beddu,

2. Chandranatha Basthi,

3. Manjunatha temple,

4. Anmanvaru temple and

5. Heggadeship,

These institutions have been shown in Exhibit A 59 which is said to be a rough sketch of the Dharmasthal. It is also not in dispute before us that "Daivas were first established in Nelleyadi Beedu, by an ancestor of Heggade who was a Jain, and were worshipped there. Heggade began to give charity to persons of all religions, and the institution became well known and travellers began to visit it in large numbers. It is the common case of the parties that Sri Vadiraja Swamiar of Sode Mutt, Udipi, who was a Sanyasi, happened to pass that way and was invited by Heggade to stay there. The Swamiar however refused to accept food there on the ground that it was "Bhuta Kshetra. Heggade felt very sorry as the great Sanyasi was starvying in his house. It is said that Heggade thereupon arranged to install the idol of Sri Manjunatha in the "garbagriha. The Swamiar was appeased and performed the first "pooja in that temple, which thereafter came to be known as Dharmasthal. This is said to have happened in the sixteenth century and is, at any rate, said to be the origin of the Manjunatha temple in the Dharmasthal campus.

4. The Board started proceedings under Section 84 (1) of the Act to decide whether Sri Manjunatha temple was a temple as defined in Cl. 12 of Section 9 of the Act. Heggade urged before the Board, inter alia, that all the institutions in Dharmasthal formed a single unit representing a private institution, that it had been founded by his ancestors on their own private land, that there was no dedication to the Hindus and they could not claim and right of worship, that Dharmasthal was Jain in character, that it was a charitable but not a religious institution, that his status was not akin to that of a mere trustee and that "Heggadeship was intimately and inseparably connected with the Dharmasthal institution and Manjunatha temple.

5. The Board made an enquiry and reached the conclusion that Manjunatha temple was separate entity and was the most important institution and that it was not the private property of the Heggade. It also held that it was not a Jain institution, but was a Hindu temple, and that it was a religious and not merely a charitable institution for its charity was c