Back
2003 Supreme(Mad) 191
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.GNANAPRAKASAM
Chellam Pillai & Others - Appellant
Versus
Palavesam Pillai & Others - Respondents
Second Appeal No.1713/1990
Decided On : 10 February 2003
The main legal point established in the judgment is the autonomy of religious denominations in managing their institutions under Art.26 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
Art.26 - Religious Denominational Institution - Act 22 of 1959 - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the applicability of Art.26 of the Constitution of India and the provisions of Act 22 of 1959 in relation to the management and administration of religious denominational institutions. The court highlighted the rights of religious denominations to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes, and the autonomy of religious denominations in managing their affairs. The court also emphasized the need for a religious denomination to be designated by a distinctive name and to have a common faith and organization.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs, belonging to the Vadakoor Vellala community, filed a suit claiming that their institutions are denominational and entitled to protection under Art.26 of the Constitution of India. The defendants, appointed as trustees by the HR & CE Department, contested the claim, stating that the suit institution was under their control.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Sri Nainar Kulasekara Vinayagar Temple belonged to the Vadakoor Vellala community and was a denominational institution managed and administered by them. However, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim regarding two other temples - Muthuramman and Esaki Amman temples.
Issues: The main issues were whether the suit institution is a denominational institution, whether the plaintiffs were the elected trustees of the denomination, and whether the HR & CE Department had the jurisdiction and powers to appoint trustees for denominational institutions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Sri Nainar Kulasekara Vinayagar Temple was a denominational institution belonging to the Vadakoor Vellala community, as evidenced by their exclusive management and administration of the temple. The court also emphasized the autonomy of religious denominations in managing their institutions under Art.26 of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The second appeal was allowed in part, decreeing that the Vadakoor Vellala community alone was entitled to manage and administer the Sri Nainar Kulasekara Vinayagar temple, while dismissing their claim for the other two temples.
The plaintiffs are the appellants herein. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that the plaintiffs' institutions is a denominational institutions and are entitled to protection under Art.26 of the Constitution of India.
2. The plaintiffs' case is that Vadakoor Aaralvoimozhi is a well defined locality in Aaralvaimozhi hamlet of Thovala Village and Taluk, Kanyakumari District. The vellalas inhabiting in Vadakoor Aralvoimozhi are collection of individuals, having a common faith and are followers of Saivite form of Hindu religion and designated by the distinct name 'Vadakoor Vellala Samudhayam' and this constitutes a denomination by itself. It is stated that the said Vellala Community has got their own peculiar customs and practice in the religious worship of the suit temple. The main deity Sri Nainar Kulasekara Vinayagar is situated in the sanctum sanctorum and in the Ardhamandapam Acharya Vinayagar is situate. Deeparathanai will be done for the main deity in the sanctum sanctorum. There are two Nagars behind Acharya Vinayagar and on the side of the said Ardhavinayagar an idol of Baktha is found. Worship is done to them also. In the Ardhamandapam, a panchaloha Mutharamman deity is found and deeparathanai is done to this deity after deebarathanai is done to the other deities. There is another temple belonging to the Trust. The main deity is Muthuramman. Just in front of the Amman temple, there is an idol for "Ubayan Seravan'. The pooja for Ubayan Seravan will be conducted by Murayan Pillai, a member of the Vellala community and the offerings to this deity will be taken by the poojari. In the month of Karthigai, on each day, each member of the Vellala community would conduct special (Chirappu) pooja and on the last day of Karthigai if it falls on Tuesday or on the first Tuesday,of Markali 'Vilakku Polivu' function will be conducted and the expenses were met exclusively by the members of the Vellala Community. The temple will be closed in the event of death of a member of the Community and there will be a special function called 'Neermalai' by which garland will be given from the temple. Pooja will be done only after the removal of the body. Special function will be held at the time of the marriage of any member of the Vellala Community and Rs.3/- will be collected for the Trust from the bridegroom. According to the plaintiffs, these institutions are religious denominational institutions and are entitled to acquire properties and to manage them by their chosen representatives and administer them un interfered with by any one. According to them, this right is guaranteed to them under Art.26 of the Constitution of India. It is stated that the plaintiffs are chosen representatives of the denomination and were duly elected on 15.3.1970. The first plaintiff is the Managing Trustee and others are members of the Trust Board. They were elected for five years. The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department has no right to appoint trustees to the plaintiff-temple under S.49 and 47 of the Act. But the 4th Respondent, Asst. Commissioner, HR & CE Suchindram. has chosen to appoint defendants 1 to 3 as trustees to the suit temple and he has no power to do so. Notice under Section 80 CPC was issued. Plaintiffs gave a petition to the Commissioner, HR & CE Board, and the order of the Asst. Commissioner was stayed. HR & CE department has no right to interfere with the administration of the temples run by the plaintiffs community as it is a denominational religious institution and therefore, the plaintiffs sought for a declaration of such right.
3. The defendants 1 to 3 filed a common written statement wherein they have stated that the first plaintiff was appointed as fit person by the 4th respondent in July 1965 for a period of five years to function in the Board of Trustees on the application submitted by the first plaintiff to the fourth respondent on 5.5.1965 and thereby, he was subjected to the jurisdiction of the fourt
