Installation of idol in the premises of Samadies.

This appeal suit is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 2-7-1981, rendered in O.S. No.633 of 1979 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, thereby decreeing the suit as prayed for, a suit filed by the respondent herein against the Commissioner, H.R. and C.E.(A), Madras, thereby praying to declare that the plaintiff institution is not a religious institution as defined under Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, and further to set aside the order of the Commissioner, passed in A.P. No.214 of 1977 dated 24-9-1978.

2. Tracing the history of the case as projected by the respondent through the plaint in the said suit before the lower Court, it comes to be known that the respondent had filed the suit on allegations such as that the great Saints Sri Bhagavandha Swamigal and Sri Dhayananda Swamigal who were worshipped with great devotion by Sri N. Delvasikamani, the present hereditary trustee's paternal grandfather; that Sri Bhagavandhar attained Nirvana on 18-12-1889 and Sri Dhayanandha on 25-6-1905 and their mortal remains were interred and Samadhies were constructed therein by Delvasikamani and regular dally pooja were performed all these years, in addition to special Poojas on Important days like Krithlgal, Amavasal, Poumami, Navarathri etc.; that on anniversary days when the Saints attained Nirvana, Guru Pooja was conducted on a grand scale; that these two Samadhies are being administered ever since 1889 by the male descendants of the founder trustee, N. Delvasikamani and by the hereditary trustee recognised by the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. and C, E. Trichy in O.A. No.169 of 1976; that those saints have been worshipped during their life time by all religious people and even after attaining Samadhies, they worshipped the Samadhies and received the Grace of the Saints.

3. The further averments of the plaint are that originally there was only a Ball Peetams with no Idols, but recently idols have been installed near the Ball Peetams; that since the Samadhies are open for all religious people, they cannot be considered as a Hindu Religious institution; that the plaintiff filed O.A. No.167 of 1976 before the Deputy Commissioner H.R. and C.E. Trichy under Sections 63(a) and 63(b) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") seeking an order to the effect that it is not a religious Institution under the Act and that the plaintiff is the hereditary trustee; that the Deputy Commissioner while recognising the plaintiff as a hereditary trustee held that the institution is a religious institution; that on appeal filed before the Commissioner in A.P. No.214 of 1977, he confirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Trichy and hence, the statutory suit was filed under S.70 of the Act for the reliefs extracted supra.

4. The Defendant Commissioner H.R. and C.E. Madras, in his written statement filed before the trial Court, would submit that the presence of Ball Peetams and the idols indicate the nature of the public temple even though the origin was Samadhies; that the Hindus worshipped only the idols; that though it was originally the Samadhies, latter it developed as a public temple; that he had rightly confirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner in declaring the plaintiff as the hereditary trustee but declining to grant other reliefs, declaring to the effect that the suit properties were not the religious institutions; that the presence of the Ball Peetams and the idols of Hindu Gods clearly Indicate that the Institution is a public religious Institution; that the orders are lawful; that there had been no notice sent under S.80 C.P.C. prior to filing of the suit and hence, on such grounds would, ultimately, pray to dismiss the suit with costs.

5. The trial Court based on the above pleadings by parties has framed four issues namely, (i) whether the order of the defendant is liable to be set aside for the reasons stated by the plaintiff? (i