Back
1923 Supreme(SC) 47
Privy Council
Sir Lawrence Jenkins, Ameer Ali, Sir John Edge, Phillimore, Justice Dunedin, JJ.
Pujari Lakshmana Goundan and another -Appellant
Versus
Subramania Ayyar and others -Resopndent
P.C.A. No. 45 of 1922
Decided On : 22-11-1923
Douglas Grant, T.L. Wilson and Co., K.V.L. Narasimham, K. Brown, De Gruyther
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Hindu Religious Endowments
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Religious Institutions - Caste of the priest - The fact that the priest of a public temple belongs to a caste other than Brahmin does not preclude the temple from being a public institution, as there are established instances of public temples where the priests are not Brahmins.
Facts of the case:
The dispute concerned whether a temple founded by the grandfather of the defendants was a public religious institution or the private property of the family. The founder had installed an idol, adopted specific rituals, and allowed Hindus of various castes to worship. He received offerings and fees, which were used to purchase jewels for the idol, construct accommodation for worshippers, build a circular road for processions, and establish a rest house for worshippers. While the inner shrine was restricted and some areas required fees, the general public was admitted free of charge on certain days. No deed of dedication was produced, and the institution was not under the control of the government revenue board.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the founder represented the temple to the public as a public institution where all Hindus might worship. This conduct led to the conclusion that the temple had been dedicated to the public, notwithstanding the absence of a written deed and reports from local officials suggesting it was private.
Issues: Whether the temple was a public religious institution or the private property of the founder's family, and whether the caste of the priest affected this determination.
Ratio Decidendi: Dedication to the public can be inferred from the conduct of the founder if he held the temple out to the public as a public institution. The absence of a formal deed or government control does not preclude a finding of public dedication if the factual evidence of public use and maintenance supports it. Furthermore, the status of a temple as public is not dependent on the priest being a Brahmin.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
religious law
-
religious endowments
-
public and private temples
- dedication to public
- pujari qualifications
-
public and private temples
-
religious endowments
Sir John Edge :-
This is an appeal by the defendants from an order of the High Court at Madras dated the 25th September, 1919, by which it was declared that the temple of Sri Kandaswami, otherwise known as Sri Subramaniaswami in the village of Kalipatta, situate in district of Salem, was a public religious institution, and remanding the suit to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Salem with a direction that a scheme for the management of the temple should be framed by that Court in the light of the observations contained in the judgment delivered by the High Court. In the plaint it had been alleged that the defendants were unfit to be the pujaris or dharmakartas of the temple and it was prayed that they should be removed from office. By the order of remand that prayer was disallowed.
The plaintiffs are Hindus who worship at the temple. They are not related to the family of the defendants. The first plaintiff is a Brahmin, the other two plaintiffs and the defendants are Sudras by caste. The first defendant has been for some years the pujari of the temple; he succeeded his father as pujari of the temple, and his father succeeded as pujari of the temple his father Lakshmana Goundan, who died in 1856 or 1857, and was the founder of the temple. The other defendant is the undivided son of the first defendant. In this judgment when a temple is mentioned without any other description it will be understood that the temple of Kandaswami in the village of Kalipatta is the temple referred to.
If the temple is not a public temple the plaintiffs have no right to maintain the suit in which this appeal has arisen; unless it is a public temple the plaintiffs are not concerned with it or with its management; their only remedy in such a case is to cease worshipping at the temple if they do not approve of the management of it. The defendants deny that the temple is a public temple. Their case is that the temple is and has always been the private property of the family to which they belong.
The temple is not an ancient temple. It was founded between 1841 and 1856 by Lakshmana Goundan, the grandfather of the first defendant, under circumstances which will later be mentioned, Unless the temple was dedicated to the public it was not a public temple, and in their Lordships' opinion a dedication of it to the public, if it was dedicated, must have been by Lakshmana Goundan, the grandfather of the first defendant. No deed or other document of dedication of the temple has been produced, and it may be taken as a fact that there never was any deed or document of dedication of the temple to the public. In 1817 the British Government assumed the control of all public endowments, Hindu and Mahommedan, in the Presidency of Madras and placed them under the charge of the Board of Revenue; that policy was continued and acted upon until Act XX of 1863 was passed, when the Government divested itself of the charge and control of such institutions and placed them under the management of their respective creeds. (See VIDYA VARUTHI THIRTHA v. BALUSAMI AYYAR 1922 P. C. 123 - 44 Mad 831 - 48 IA 302 - 41 MLJ 346 - 1921 MWN 449 30 MLT 66 - 15 MLW 78 - 3 PLT 245 - 26 CWN 537 - 20 ALJ 497 - 24 Bom LR 629 - 65 IC 121. The temple at Kalipatta was not taken under the control of the Board of Revenue. It may be assumed that it would have been taken under the control of the Board if it had been dedicated to the public by a deed which was made public. The question whether the temple ever was dedicated to the public must consequently depend upon inferences which can legitimately be drawn from facts not in dispute and from unambiguous evidence on the record of this suit, regard being had to the principles of Hinduism which prevail in the Presidency of Madras. It would be a legitimate inference to draw that the founder of the temple, the grandfather of the first defendant, had dedicated the temple to the public if it was found that he had held out the temple to the public as a public
