Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ajay Rastogi, Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.
R.M. Sundaram @ Meenakshisundaram – Appellant
Versus
Sri Kayarohanasamy And Neelayadhakshi Amman Temple (through Its Executive Officer) Nagapattinam, Tamil Nadu – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 3964-3965 of 2009
Decided On : 11-07-2022
ENDOWMENT - SPECIFIC ENDOWMENT - SUIT JEWELLERY - DEDICATION - RELIGIOUS CHARITY - RES JUDICATA - CONSTRUCTIVE RES JUDICATA - ORDER II RULE 2 OF THE CODE - DECREE OF INJUNCTION - COURT'S JURISDICTION - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - SECTION 11 - TAMIL NADU HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1959 - SECTIONS 6, 17, 19, 38, 63, 69, 70, 114, 116(2)(XII) - INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - SECTION 29(D), 113 - LIMITATION ACT, 1963 - ARTICLE 113.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute arose from two separate suits in relation to (i) the dedication of 26 items of jewellery to the deity Sri Neelayadhakshi Amman of the Sri Kayarohanasamy and Neelayadhakshi Amman Temple; and (ii) the exclusive possession of the 'Kudavarai' (safe vaults) of the Temple which houses the suit jewellery. The appellant, R.M. Sundaram, claimed that the suit jewellery was inherited by him as his personal property being the adopted son of Muthuthandapani Chettiar and his wife, M. Thangammal. The respondent/Temple contested the suit on several grounds including, inter alia, the appellant's right to file such a suit, the maintainability of the suit filed, the appellant's status as the adopted son on Muthuthandapani Chettiar, the appellant's lack of title over the suit jewellery, and the custody over the keys of the Kudavarai by Muthuthandapani Chettiar being merely an honorary responsibility.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court, in the impugned judgment, allowed the second appeal preferred by the respondent/Temple which had arisen from a separate independent suit instituted by the Temple seeking, inter alia, a declaration of existence of specific endowment in respect of the suit jewellery in favour of the deity, Sri Neelayadhakshi Amman, and for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with the right of the deity to take out the suit jewellery from the Kudavarai. The trial court decreed the suit accepting the version of the respondent/Temple that the suit jewellery was donated by the ancestors of Muthuthandapani Chettiar since 1894. The trial court held that the reliance placed by the appellant upon the adoption deed, entered into after the death of Muthuthandapani Chettiar, was of no avail as the suit jewellery had been donated to the Temple and stored within the premises of the Temple since 1894. The suit jewellery was not made for the benefit of the family of Muthuthandapani Chettiar. The suit jewellery was kept inside the vault of the respondent/Temple as it was donated by the ancestors of Sri Muthuthandapani Chettiar for decorating and use of the idol Amman. The trial court was also of the view that the appellant had not been able to prove his adoption by Muthuthandapani Chettiar and his wife, M. Thangammal.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit jewellery was dedicated to the deity Sri Neelayadhakshi Amman and constituted a specific endowment? 2. Whether the appellant had any right over the suit jewellery? 3. Whether the suit filed by the respondent/Temple for declaration was barred under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908? 4. Whether the appellant was entitled to a decree of injunction restraining the respondent/Temple from interfering with his right to take out the suit jewellery from the Kudavarai?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The suit jewellery was a specific endowment for the performance of the specific service of adorning the deity, Sri Neelayadhakshi Amman, to be taken out in the Temple car and ratham in a grand procession during the Adipooram festival. Further, it was a charity in favour of the Temple and was for performance of a religious charity. 2. The involvement of the family of the appellant was limited and restricted to retaining the keys of the Kudavarai and the iron safe which were to be opened at the time of the festival of Adipooram and the suit jewellery was to be taken out for the specific purpose of adorning the deity, Sri Neelayadhakshi Amman. 3. The claim of the appellant based on the principle of res judicata and constructive res judicata/ Order II Rule 2 of the Code as the respondent/Temple has earlier filed a suit for appointment of a receiver for taking inventory of the suit jewellery is also without merit. 4. The decree of injunction as passed by the High Court, it is clarified, is in the terms of the prayer made in the suit (OS No.56/96) and also is in terms of this judgment.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed and the judgment of the High Court affirming the decree of declaration passed by trial court in Suit No. 56/96, which was also upheld by the first appellate court, was upheld. The decree of injunction as passed by the High Court was modified and a decree of injunction was passed restraining the appellant from interfering in any manner with the right of the Temple authorities to take out the suit jewellery from the Kudavarai whenever the occasion demands.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The suit involved a dispute over 26 items of jewellery that were dedicated to a deity in a temple, with the jewellery being used specifically during a major festival, and the question of whether these items constituted a specific endowment in favor of the temple (!) (!) .
The appellant claimed that the jewellery was inherited as his personal property through adoption, but the courts found that the jewellery was a religious endowment donated by ancestors for temple purposes and not for private use (!) (!) .
The courts established that the jewellery was a specific endowment intended for the adornment of the deity during festival processions, and this endowment was for a religious purpose, thus belonging to the temple and its deity (!) (!) .
The management and custody of the jewellery, including keys to the vaults, were primarily with the temple authorities, and the involvement of the appellant was limited to holding some keys for specific festival purposes; this did not confer ownership or exclusive rights over the jewellery (!) (!) .
The evidence demonstrated that the jewellery had been in the temple’s custody since 1894, and the long-standing use, along with official records and registers, supported the conclusion that the jewellery was a public religious endowment, not private property (!) (!) .
The courts emphasized that endowments can be inferred from circumstances and long-standing usage even without explicit documentation, and the absence of ceremonial acts does not negate the existence of an endowment (!) (!) (!) .
The principle that a property dedicated for religious purposes loses its private character over time and becomes a public endowment was reinforced, along with the understanding that such endowments are intended for the benefit of the worshippers and the temple’s religious functions (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The courts rejected the appellant’s claim of ownership based on inheritance and adoption, affirming that the jewellery was a religious endowment and thus belonged to the temple, not the individual or family (!) (!) .
The legal proceedings clarified that the prior suit filed by the temple seeking inventory and declaration did not operate as res judicata on the subsequent claims because the causes of action and issues involved were different, and the earlier decision was not on merits (!) (!) (!) .
The courts upheld the validity of the endowment, affirming that the jewellery was dedicated for a specific religious purpose, and dismissed claims that the jewellery was private or inherited property (!) (!) (!) .
The final judgment confirmed that the temple authorities have the right to access and use the jewellery for religious festivals and ceremonies, and the appellant was restrained from interfering with this right. The appellant was also directed to surrender a missing item within a specified timeframe (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The judgment emphasized that relief granted must align with the original pleadings and prayers; thus, the scope of the court’s order was limited to the relief sought and the issues proved in the case (!) (!) (!) .
The decision clarified that the order of the court is based on the clear evidence of long-standing usage, official records, and the nature of the endowment, establishing that the jewellery is a public religious endowment and not private property of the appellant or his family (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.
JUDGMENT
Sanjiv Khanna, J. - The dispute in the present appeals arises from two separate suits in relation to (i) the dedication of 26 items of jewellery1[For short, 'suit jewellery'.], some of which are embedded with diamonds and precious stones, to the deity Sri Neelayadhakshi Amman of the Sri Kayarohanasamy and Neelayadhakshi Amman Temple;2[Hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent' or 'Temple'.] and (ii) the exclusive possession of the 'Kudavarai' (safe vaults) of the Temple which houses the suit jewellery.
2. It is the case of the appellant, R.M. Sundaram, that the suit jewellery was inherited by him as his personal property being the adopted son of Muthuthandapani Chettiar and his wife, M. Thangammal. On 6th November 1985, the appellant had instituted a civil suit (O.S. No. 156/1986) before the court of the District Munsiff of Nagapattinam seeking, inter alia, a mandatory injunction directing the Temple to comply with the undertaking given in the letter dated 4th October 1962 and thereby permit the appellant to 'maintain independent and exclusive possession and enjoyment of the Kudavarai' of the Temple. It was pleaded that during the lifetime of his father, Muthuthandapani Chettiar, the suit jewellery known as 'Abaranam', that was owned and possessed by Muthuthandapani Chettiar, was licensed to be kept in the Kudavarai of the Temple. The proprietary right, title and interest in the suit jewellery continued to vest with Muthuthandapani Chettiar, who had retained possession and remained the exclusive owner of the suit jewellery throughout his lifetime. By way of gratitude, Muthuthandapani Chettiar, in terms of a letter of undertaking dated 4th October 1962, had given the keys of two external locks of the Kudavarai to the Executive Officer of the Temple to temporarily store the Temple jewellery, which is different from the suit jewellery, in the Kudavarai. This was a temporary arrangement, as expressly stated in the undertaking, and the Temple jewellery would be shifted back to the treasury room of the Temple after it was renovated. The plaint also refers to a civil suit filed by the respondent/Temple in the year 1981 (O.S.No. 99/1981) before the Subordinate Judge of Nagapattinam, an aspect which we would advert to in some detail later on.
3. The respondent/Temple contested the suit on several grounds including, inter alia, the appellant's right to file such a suit, the maintainability of the suit filed, the appellant's status as the adopted son on Muthuthandapani Chettiar, the appellant's lack of title over the suit jewellery, and the custody over the keys of the Kudavarai by Muthuthandapani Chettiar being merely an honorary responsibility. On merits, it was contended by the Temple that the suit jewellery, namely Abaranams, and the Temple jewellery were acquired from time to time over the past few centuries by way of donations or endowments made by unknown donors. The suit jewellery as well as the other Temple jewels have always been in the custody, use, enjoyment and possession of the idol/deity, Sri Neelayadhakshi Amman, only through the functionaries of the Temple and no other person. The suit jewellery was donated by the ancestors of Muthuthandapani Chettiar absolutely to the idol/deity and constitutes a specific endowment attached to the Temple. The donations have been recorded as Sri Adipoora Amman (Neelayadhakshi Amman) Thiruvabaranam Endownment. The suit jewellery is adorned by Sri Neelayadhakshi Amman deity for ten days in the month of Adi every year marking the festival of adolescence and puberty in a celestial and mythological sense. On this occasion, many people, particularly women, celebrate the festival with great enthusiasm by distributing all sorts of 'Mangala Samans' to all women devotees and worshippers thronging the Temple. During this festival time, the 'Utsava' deity of Sri Neelayadhakshi Amman (popularly known as Sri Adipoora Amman) and the deity idol (Sri Neelayadhakshi Amman) used to be/are decked an
A dedication of property for religious purposes can be established through intent and conduct, even in the absence of formal documentation, and such dedication constitutes a public religious charity ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, a property dedicated for charitable activities cannot be alienated, and an....
The suit properties were specifically endowed for doing charity services to the temple. The Court held that the suit properties have been completely endowed to the Temple for the purpose of performin....
Beneficiaries of a religious trust have the right to seek injunctions against unauthorized alienation of trust properties, and the Executive Officer is duty-bound to protect such properties.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the dedication of the properties for the performance of Naivedyam service to the temple constituted a specific endowment, and the application ....
The court affirmed the hereditary trusteeship of defendants, ruling that plaintiffs failed to prove mismanagement or entitlement to non-hereditary trusteeship under the Hindu Religious Charitable End....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
