1959 Supreme(AP) 140
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : MUNI KANNIAH, P.SATYANARAYANA RAJU
Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Andhra - Appellant
Versus
Kasi Nattukottai Nagara Chatram, Managing Society by its authorised agent R.M.P.A.Annamalai Chettiar - Respondent
Decided On : 08-18-59
The decision of the Hindu Religious Endowments Board in an earlier proceeding was not final and binding on the plaintiff as it related to a religious endowment, which was not within the jurisdiction of the Board under Section 84 of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act.
Headnote:
HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS ACT - CHATROULY - TEMPLE - RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENT - DISPUTE - JURISDICTION - BOARD - CIVIL COURT - NOTICE - LIMITATION - [ACT II OF 1927, S. 84, 9(12), 9(11-A), 70(2), 102, ACT 19 OF 1951, S. 57, 14 OF LIMITATION ACT].
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a managing society of a choultry, filed a suit for a declaration that the choultry and the temple situate in its precincts belong to the plaintiff. The defendant, the Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Andhra, contested the suit on the ground that in an earlier proceeding before the Hindu Religious Endowments Board, the temple with the choultry was declared to be a public institution and that the plaintiff's suit was barred by the provisions of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the decision of the Board in the earlier proceeding was not final and binding on the plaintiff as it related to a religious endowment, which was not within the jurisdiction of the Board under Section 84 of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act. The court further held that the choultry was a private institution and not a religious endowment of the temple, and that the plaintiff was entitled to a declaration of its title to the choultry.
Issues: 1. Whether the decision of the Hindu Religious Endowments Board in the earlier proceeding was final and binding on the plaintiff? 2. Whether the choultry was a private institution or a religious endowment of the temple?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The jurisdiction of the Board under Section 84 of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act is limited to disputes relating to whether an institution is a Math, Temple, or Excepted Temple. The Board has no jurisdiction to decide disputes relating to religious endowments. 2. A religious endowment is a property or money endowed for the support of a temple or for the purpose of any service or charity connected therewith. The choultry in the present case was not endowed for the support of the temple or for any service or charity connected therewith. Therefore, the choultry was not a religious endowment of the temple.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed and the trial court's decree declaring the plaintiff's title to the choultry was upheld.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Rajahimundry, declaring the title to the choultry known as "nagara. Viduthi" at Aryapuram, Rajahmundry in favour of the plaintiff who is the managing society of that choultry. The appellant is the Commissioner for the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Andhra. The 1st respondent is the managing society represented by its authorised agent and the 2nd respondent is the Gurukul of Sri Marakata Vinn-yakaswamy temple situate in the precincts of the chatram, 2. The facts leading to this litigation maybe briefly stated: The building of Nagara Viduthi was purchased on 25-8-1920 by the plaintilf-society who is the 1st respondent herein. It consists of a large terraced building with a spacious compound measuring about 2,400 Sq. yards. It serves as a private lodge; and boarding and Other amenities. t0 the members of the Nattukottai Chettiar Vysya Community who visit the place are provided. In a place adjacent to this choultry, a temple which occupies 15 x 20 has been built and the idol of Sri Marakatha Vinayakaswamy has been installed in it. The Gurukul who performs and attends to lighting and formal Nivedyam and cooks rice and offers it to the deity is paid Rs. 7. 00 per month for his services and expenses. About Rs. 15. 00 is also spent on the temple-and this expenditure is treated as part of the establishment charges of the chatram. In 1934 the then managing trustee of the Chatram presented an application to the Hindu Religious Endowments Board praying for a declaration that the temple of Sri Marakatha Vinayakaswamy Varu is a private one and therefore is exempt from any contribution to the Board. On 3-1-1935 orders under Section 84 of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act were passed in O. A. No. 128 of 1934 to the effect that that temple with the choultry is a public institution as defined under clause 12 of Section 9 of the Madras Act II of 1927 and that the Act is applicable to it and to its endowments. A notice D/- 14-6-1946 was issued to the Gurukul or trustee of the temple calling on him to pay contribution at the rate of Rs. 30. 00 for each fasli for three faslis and also audit fees, totalling to Rs. 105. 00. The management of the chatram filed on 29-7-1946 objections thereto which questioned the levy as illegal and improper. But these objections were rejected on 12-9-1946 and thereupon the contribution as demanded was paid on 1-10-1946. Thereafter as a preliminary to the step to obtain an effective and complete adjudication in regard to the right of the Hindu Religious Endowments Board to levy contribution, notice was issued to the Board On 25-2-1947 by the plaintiff under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As in spite of the notice the Board continued to levy the contribution, the plaintiff filed O. Section No. 164 of 1948 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras only against the Board but that suit was dismissed on the ground of want of jurisdiction. A. A. O. No. 589 of 1949 filed in the High Court of Madras was also dismissed on 10-4-1951, on the same ground. The Board thereafter persisted in issuing demands for contribution in successive faslis. The managing society of the Chatram had thereupon to file the present suit on 2-1-1953 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry praying for declaration that the choultry and the temple belong to the plaintiff (1st respondent ). The 1st defendant who is the 2nd respondent herein remained ex parte and the suit was contest ed by the appellant only. By the time the suit which gave rise to this appeal had been filed, the Board disappeared and is replaced by the Com missioner, and hence the suit was filed by the 1st respondent against the appellant. The suit is resist ed by the appellant on the ground that in O. A. No. 128 of 1934 the Board declared the temple with the choultry as a public institution and that as there was no application filed as provided un der Section 84 (2) of
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
