Religious Institution defined under Section 6(18) includea a Samadhi worshipped by members of general public.

(Prayer: L.P.A against the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2001 passed by this court in A.S.No.608/1995.)

P.K. Misra, J.

The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department has filed this appeal under the Letters Patent challenging the order passed by the learned single Judge in A.S.No.608 of 1995 dated 1.8.2001, under the following circumstances :-

The respondent had filed O.A.No.169 of 1996 before the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Board for declaration under Section 63(a) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act,1959, hereinafter referred to as the Act, that the disputed institution is not a religious institution. It was also prayed that the trustee was holding office as a hereditary trustee as contemplated under Section 63(b) of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner found that the institution is a religious institution and declared the present respondent as hereditary trustee. Such order was challenged before the Commissioner in AP.No.214 of 1977, but the said appeal was rejected by the Commissioner. Thereafter, as contemplated under section 70 of the Act, the respondent filed O.S.No.633 of 1979 before the Subordinate Judge for declaration that the plaintiff institution is not a religious institution as defined under the Act and for setting aside the order of the Commissioner, HR & CE passed in the appeal.

2. The main assertion made in such suit was to the effect that the present hereditary trustee’s paternal grandfather was a great devotee of two saints, namely, Sri Bhagavandhas Swamigal and Sri Dhayanada Swamigal, and after such saints attained nirvana, their mortal remains were interned and structures have been put up by such paternal grandfather of the trustee. Regular poojas were held in the samdahis. These samadhis are being administered by the male descendants of the founder trustee as per the instructions and the present trustee has been recognised as the hereditary trustee. It was further alleged that originally only ‘Bali Peetams’ were put up over the samadhis and there were no idols, but about 15 years before filing of the suit, idols have been placed near ‘Bali Peetams’. It was further stated that the institution was not a Hindu religious institution since it is open to members of all religious and people of all religions are entitled to worship and in fact worshipping.

3. A written statement was filed on behalf of the present appellant, wherein it was contended that the suit institution was a religious institution and has been rightly found as such by the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner. It was further stated that since notice as required under Section 80 C.P.C., has not been issued, the suit was liable to be dismissed on that ground.

4. The trial court found that the origin of the suit institution has been from samadhis of two swamigals and even though certain idols have been placed near the samadhis in recent times, it cannot be said that suit institution was a religious institution as defined under the Act. For the aforesaid purpose, the Subordinate Judge relied upon a decision of this Court reported in 1977 (I) MLJ 125 (SOUNDHARA AMMAL v. THE TIRUCHIRAPALLI MAVATTAM MAHASURULI ALAYA BAKTHARGAL MADYA SANGAM), which in its turn had relied upon an earlier decision of this Court reported in 1955(I) MLJ 60 (BODENDRASWAMI MUTT v. PRESIDENT, H.R. & C.E. BOARD), wherein it has been indicated that mere presence of idols of Gods and recognised deities in the matam round the samadhi would not bring such institution within the definition of the temple and such samadhi cannot be considered as a public temple. On the basis of such conclusion, the trial court decreed the plaintiff’s suit with a declaration that the institution was not a religious institution as defined under the Act. Such decision was challenged by the Endowment Commissioner before the learned single Judge, wherein the learned single Judge by relying upon the decision reporte