Ramaprasada Rao, J.- The plaintiffs for themselves and on behalf of 24 families of the Erumaikara Naicker community instituted a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, to set aside the order of the first defendant viz-, the Commissioner, Hindu Religions and Charitable Endowments, Madras, who in turn confirmed that of the Deputy Commissioner where under the department declared a temple known as “ Dhroupathi Amman Temple” situate in West Car Street, Dindigul Town as a public temple. The case of the plaintiffs as is seen from the pleadings is that the temple was established about 330 years ago by the families known as Santhakula Sowmiya Narayana Gowraya community or Erumaikara Naicker community and that these families were living in different places, such as, Dindigul, Madurai, Quilon, Palani, Palghat, Nilgiris, Calicut, Cannanore, Mananthavadi, Mercara and Sivaganga. It is admitted that there was no dedication of the temple. But it is contended that at no time the temple or its precincts or its accessories wore built by subcriptions from the public. The plaintiffs arc emphatic that the public did not contribute any amount towards the income of the said temple. According to the pleadings the temple was being maintained from marriage; fees levied from the descendants of 24 families as above, Mahimai realised exclusively from them and the fine levied by the members of the community for any misconduct of its members. There are certain shops in and around the temple precincts and it is claimed that the rental income from the shops is added to supplement the income of the temple and they form a source for its maintenance and sustenance. They admit that in 1940 the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board attempted to interfere with the administration of the temple by appointing trustees thereto and by consent the offer of the then trustees of the temple to have such election of trustees periodically once in five years was accepted by the department. Ever since by rotation the trustees are being appointed by the Endowments Board Department. But in 1960 when attempts were made by the department to appoint an Executive Officer, the plaintiffs and defendants 2 to 4 filed an application under the provisions of Madras Act XXII of 1959 for a declaration that the temple is not a religious institution within the meaning of the said Act. That application was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner and an appeal against that order of the Deputy Commissioner was equally unsuccessful. To set aside the said order the present suit was filed by the plaintiffs.

2. Considerable reliance was placed upon the observations made by this Court and the decision made in second Appeal No. 1037 of 1932, which was a case which arose on account of certain disputes between the trustees and the pujari of the temple. It is on these contentions the present action has been laid.

3. The first defendant in his written statement categorically maintains that the suit temple is not a private one, but a public one and bases his claim on the following features which are gathered from the pleadings:- (1) There is no record or evidence to show who built the temple and when it was built. The origin and construction of the temple is not known. (2) There is nothing to connect the old 24 families with the present families, who claimed a right to be in management and administration of the temple. (3) Municipal tax has been exempted as a place of public religious worship under the provisions of the District Municipalities Act. (4) For a period of 22 years and more the trustees have been appointed by the Religious Endowments Board in exercise of the powers under Act XXII of 1959. (5) The temple has been contributing its share to the Board and maintaining what is popularly known as “ Register” under section 38 of the Act. (6) There is a regular audit by the department regarding the accounts of the temple. (7) The temple has been used as a place of public religious worship and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document