2011 Supreme(SC) 929

2011 (6) Supreme 565
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.V. Raveendran and H.L. Gokhale, JJ.
Parasamaya Kolerinatha Madam, Tirunelveli — Appellant
versus
P.Natesa Achari & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No.8439 of 2001
Decided on : 22-9-2011

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) The fact that there are some idols installed in a Math and members of the public offer worship to such idol will not make it a place of public religious worship, that is, a temple, if the other ingredients of a math exist or if it is established to be a premises belonging to a math and used by the math for its purposes. If the property in its origin was a math property, it cannot be treated as a temple merely because the math had installed idols and permitted worship by the members of the community and the premises is used for rendering charitable and religious services.
(2) The mere fact that members of the public are allowed to worship at a place, will not make it a public temple. The Hindu sentiments and the tenets of Hinduism do not normally exclude worshippers from a place of worship, even when it is private or part of a Math.
(3) If the property in its origin was a math property, it cannot be treated as a temple merely because the math had installed idols and permitted worship by the members of the community and the premises is used for rendering charitable and religious services.

Headnote:(a) Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1954 ¯ Appellant Math filed O.S. on the file of Madras High Court alleging that appellant Math was established several centuries ago ¯ The idol of Goddess Meenakshi and the statue of the Head of the Math with his Padukas were installed by the Math in the suit property in the eighteenth century and were worshipped by the disciples of the Math and other devotees ¯ As the Headquarters of the Math was situated at the far-away Tirunelveli, the Mathadhipathi had entrusted the management of the said Math property to nominated Agent/s who were the local elders of the Viswakarma community ¯ Persons earlier managing the property handed over management to the defendants no. 1 and 2, who were claiming the suit property with the Meenakshiamman idol as a temple independent of the Math, managed by the local Viswakarma community ¯ Defendants contested suit, alleging that the suit property was a temple and the Math did not ‘exist’ in the suit property ¯ The plaintiff Math had no connection with the suit property ¯ Single Judge trying the suit held that the suit property belonged to the plaintiff Math and the Thirty Second Head of the plaintiff Math had installed the Goddess Meenakashi in the temple ¯ In intra Court appeal a Division Bench of the High Court held that the characteristics of a Math were absent and the plaintiff Math had failed to prove that the affairs of the Math alone were carried on in the premises ¯ The Division Bench held the suit property to be a ‘temple’ and consequently dismissed the suit ¯ Hence this appeal by special leave ¯ The Supreme Court held that it was proved beyond doubt that the said suit property was the property belonging to the plaintiff Math, vested in its Mathadhipathi ¯ The entrustment of management by the plaintiff Math to the elders/members of the Viswakarma Community under the guidance and supervision of the Math, would not divest the title of the Math to the property ¯ Plaintiff’s suit for declaration of title and possession decreed. (Paras 12 and 14)

        (b) Religious endowments ¯ Math ¯ temple ¯ Essential ingredients of a temple are first its use as a place of public religious worship ¯ Second is dedication of the structure or place to, or for the benefit of, or use as of right by, the Hindu community or a section thereof, as a place of public religious worship ¯ The mere fact that members of the public are allowed to worship at a place, will not make it a public temple ¯ The Hindu sentiments and the tenets of Hinduism do not normally exclude worshippers from a place of worship, even when it is private or part of a Math ¯ Therefore, the crucial test is not whether the members of the public are permitted to worship, but whether the worship by the members of the public is as of right by the Hindu community or any section thereof, or whether a place has been dedicated a place of public religious worship ¯ The fact that there are some idols installed in a Math and members of the public offer worship to such idol will not make it a place of public religious worship, that is, a temple, if the other ingredients of a math exist or if it is established to be a premises belonging to a math and used by the math for its purposes ¯ If the property in its origin was a math property, it cannot be treated as a temple merely because the math had installed idols and permitted worship by the members of the community and the premises is used for rendering charitable and religious services. (Para 8)