Back
1957 Supreme(Ker) 203
Judges : SANKARAN,KUMARA PILLAI
Ramunni Madayan - Appellant
Versus
State of Madras - Respondent
Case No : A. S. No. 588, 998 of 1953
Decided On : 08/09/1957
Advocates Appeared :
M. C. Sreedharan; K. Kuttikrishna Menon; T. K. Raman Nambiar; For Appellant A. Achuthan Nambiar; O. T. G. Nambiar; For Appellant K. N. Narayanan Nair; For State
The main legal point established is that once a temple is declared a public temple under the relevant acts and the earlier orders become final and conclusive, the ownership dispute cannot be re-agitated.
Headnote:
Public Temple - Dispute on temple ownership - Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1925, Madras Temple Entry Authorisation Act - S.80, S.6, S.84 - The court dismissed the suits relating to the ownership of Parassinikadavu Muthappan Sthanam, holding that the temple was declared a public temple under the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act and the Madras Temple Entry Authorisation Act, and the earlier orders were final and conclusive.
Fact of the Case:
The suits were filed to determine whether Parassinikadavu Muthappan Sthanam is a public temple or a private temple belonging exclusively to the plaintiffs' tarwad. The lower court dismissed both suits based on the earlier order declaring the temple a public temple.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the temple had been declared a public temple under the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act and the Madras Temple Entry Authorisation Act, and the earlier orders were final and conclusive, thus dismissing the suits.
Issues: The main issue was whether the temple was a public or private temple, and whether the earlier orders declaring it a public temple were binding on the plaintiffs.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the temple had been declared a public temple under the relevant acts, and the earlier orders were final and conclusive, thus binding on the plaintiffs.
Final Decision: Both appeals were dismissed with costs.
1. These two appeals arise out of two suits instituted by the karanavan and two junior members of a tarward known as Parassini Madappurakkal in Andoor Amsom, Chirakkal Taluk. The suits are O.S. No. 3/1951 and O.S. No. 7/1952 on the file of the District Court of North Malabar, the former suit being by the karanavan of the tarwad, and the latter being by the two junior members of the same tarwad. Both the suits were instituted for substantially the same relief and accordingly they were tried together and disposed of by a common judgment by which the learned District Judge dismissed both the suits. Against the dismissal of O. S.3/1951, the plaintiff in that suit has preferred A. S.588/1953, while the appeal A. S.998/1953 is by the plaintiffs in O. S.7/1952 against the dismissal of that suit. The dispute in both the suits relates to the question as to whether the Parassinikadavu Muthappan Sthanam in Andoor Amsom, Chirakkal Taluk, is a public temple as defined in the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act and in the Madras Temple Entry Authorisation Act, or whether it is only a private temple belonging exclusively to the tarwad of the plaintiffs in the two suits. An investigation into this matter was conducted as early as in the year 1926, as contemplated by S.80 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1925 (Act I of 1925) and the Religious Endowment Board constituted under that Act came to the conclusion that the Parassinikadavu Muthappan temple is a public temple to which the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act applies and a notification to that effect was published by the Board on 9-8-1926. Ext. B5 is copy of that notification and Ext. B6 is copy of the annexure to the same. After the passing of the Madras Temple Entry Authorisation Act, 1947, another notification as contemplated by S.6 of that Act Was published by the Madras Government declaring that the Parassinikadavu Muthappan temple is a public temple as defined in the Act. That notification is dated 21-3-1951 and Ext A2 is copy of the same. S.6 of the Temple Entry Authorisation Act runs as follows:
"If any question arises as to whether a place is or is not a temple as defined in this Act, the question shall be referred to the State Government and their decision shall be final subject, however, to any decree passed by a competent civil Court in a suit filed before it within 6 months of the date of the decision of the State Government".
It was in exercise of the right of suit reserved under this section that the karanavan of the Parassinikadavu Madupurakkal tarwad instituted the suit O.S. No. 3/1951 on 20-9-1951 to have the notification Ext A2 set aside and to have a declaration that the Parassinikadavu Muthappan Sthanam is a private temple owned by the plaintiff's tarwad. The main ground on which the lower court dismissed the plaintiff's suit is that the plaintiff was bound by the earlier order Ext. B5 dated 9-8-1926 which has become final and conclusive. That order was passed with notice to the plaintiff in O.S. No. 3/1951 and after hearing his objections and after conducting the necessary investigation into the question as to whether the temple is a private temple of his tarwad or whether it is a public temple. The inquiry was conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1925. At that inquiry, the plaintiff in O.S. 3/1951 had presented a petition before the Endowment Board urging his claim that the Parassinikadavu Muthappan Sthanam is a private temple exclusively owned by his tarwad. Ext. BI is copy of that petition presented by him on 23rd August 1925, and it shows that the petitioner was urging his claim in his capacity as the karanavan of his tarwad and as the Ooralan of the temple. For pressing his claim that the temple belongs exclusively to his tarwad, he had also engaged a lawyer, as is evident from Fxt. B3, which is copy of the vakkalath executed by him in favour of Advocate Shri V. P. Karunakaran Nambi
