Back
Madras High Court
P. S. KAILASAM,BALASUBRAHMANYAN
R.Thathadesika Thathachariar - Appellant
Versus
K.V.Alagia Manavala Jeerswamy (Died) - Respondent
Decided On : 09/09/1976
RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENT - TEMPLE ELEPHANT - NAMAM - USAGE - ESTABLISHED USAGE - RES JUDICATA - LIMITATION - INJUNCTION - LACHES - WAIVER - ABANDONMENT - SCHEME - ADMINISTRATION OF TEMPLE - EXECUTIVE TRUSTEE - HONORARY TRUSTEES - ROLE AND FUNCTIONS - GOVERNMENT AND ENDOWMENT BOARD'S DUTY TO ENSURE SMOOTH FUNCTIONING OF TEMPLE.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs, representing Thengalai Vaishnavites of Kancheepuram, filed a suit for a direction to the defendants to accept the gift of an elephant to the suit temple by the plaintiffs or their nominees and have it painted with Thengalai namam on all occasions inside and outside the temple and in temple processions with Deities or when connected with the worship and other ceremonies of the temple as per the decree in A. S. No. 13 of 1854 and a permanent injunction restraining the defendants or their agents or servants from putting Vadagalai namam to the living elephant donated, maintained or possessed by the temple and using the same for any festivals, processions, functions or occasions of the temple.
Finding of the Court:
1. The established usage of the temple was to paint the temple elephant with Thengalai namam. 2. The decision in A. S. No. 13 of 1854 was binding on the trustees and conclusively established the usage. 3. The elephant which was painted with Vadagalai namam after 1941 was gifted to the temple with the condition that only Vadagalai namam had to be painted. 4. The decision in O. A. No. 466 of 1940 was based on the fact that the elephant maintained at that time by the temple had been gifted with a condition that it should bear only the Vadagalai namam and therefore the decision in O. A. No. 466 of 1940 could not be said to be conclusive on the question of the established usage of the temple. 5. The suit was not barred by the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act and the plaintiffs were entitled to maintain the suit for giving effect to the usage which had been found in A. S. No. 13 of 1854.
Issues: 1. Whether the established usage of the temple was to paint the temple elephant with Thengalai namam? 2. Whether the decision in A. S. No. 13 of 1854 was binding on the trustees and conclusively established the usage? 3. Whether the elephant which was painted with Vadagalai namam after 1941 was gifted to the temple with the condition that only Vadagalai namam had to be painted? 4. Whether the decision in O. A. No. 466 of 1940 was based on the fact that the elephant maintained at that time by the temple had been gifted with a condition that it should bear only the Vadagalai namam and therefore the decision in O. A. No. 466 of 1940 could not be said to be conclusive on the question of the established usage of the temple? 5. Whether the suit was barred by the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act and the plaintiffs were entitled to maintain the suit for giving effect to the usage which had been found in A. S. No. 13 of 1854?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The established usage of the temple was to paint the temple elephant with Thengalai namam, as found in A. S. No. 13 of 1854. 2. The decision in A. S. No. 13 of 1854 was binding on the trustees and conclusively established the usage. 3. The decision in O. A. No. 466 of 1940 was based on the fact that the elephant maintained at that time by the temple had been gifted with a condition that it should bear only the Vadagalai namam and therefore the decision in O. A. No. 466 of 1940 could not be said to be conclusive on the question of the established usage of the temple. 4. The suit was not barred by the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act and the plaintiffs were entitled to maintain the suit for giving effect to the usage which had been found in A. S. No. 13 of 1854.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs of Rs. 1000 payable by the appellants.
P.S. KAILASAM, C. J. :- Defendants 2 and 3 in the suit are the appellants in the Letters Patent Appeal. The suit was filed by plaintiffs 1 to 4. They are residents of Kancheepuram and are Thengalai Vaishnavites holding offices in Sri Devaraja Swami Temple. The suit was filed for themselves and as representatives of the entire body of Thengalai Vaishnavites of Kancheepuram, who are office holders and mirasdars of Sri Devaraja Swami Temple. The dispute mainly relates to the namam which the temple elephant should bear. The elephant died on 28-3-1965. According to the plaintiffs, the trustees were making an attempt to get an elephant themselves and introduce it with Vadagalai namam. According to the plaintiffs, the established usage of the temple is that the elephant should have only a Thengalai namam. As the plaintiffs apprehended that the trustees would induct an elephant with a Vadagalai namam, they offered to present an elephant provided it bore the Thengalai namam. They also apprehended that the trustees, who belonged to the Vadagalai sect, might introduce an elephant with a Vadagalai namam and therefore sought to prevent it. The reliefs they sought in this suit were a direction to the defendants to accept the gift of an elephant to the suit temple by the plaintiffs or their nominees and have it painted with Thengalai namam on all occasions inside and outside the temple and in temple processions with Deities or when connected with the worship and other ceremonies of the temple as per the decree in A. S. No. 13 of 1854 and a permanent injunction restraining the defendants or their agents or servants from putting Vadagalai namam to the living elephant donated, maintained or possessed by the temple and using the same for any festivals, processions, functions or occasions of the temple.
2. The Executive Trustee and two other trustees were made defendants in the suit and they raised various contentions opposing the grant of the reliefs prayed for in the suit. The Executive Trustee filed a written statement and the other two defendants, who were Honorary Trustees, also filed separate written statements.
3. The plaint was filed on 23-11-1965. The plaintiffs offered an elephant to the temple, but that offer was declined by the Trustees. The suit, though filed in July 1965, was numbered only by the end of Nov. 1965. In the meantime, on 17-11-1965, an elephant with a Vadagalai namam was introduced in the temple. The plaintiffs filed I. A. No. 1176 of 1965 on 14-12-1965 for an injunction complaining against the surreptitious introduction of the elephant. In Jan. 1966, the defendants admitted the presentation of the elephant with a Vadagalai namam and contended that as a Vadagalai namam had already been put on the elephant, no temporary injunction need be granted. The plaintiffs filed I. A. No. 439 of 1968 praying for an amendment of the plaint on the ground that after the filing of the plaint, an elephant with a Vadagalai namam had been introduced. They sought for a direction to the defendants to erase the Vadagalai namam put on the face of the elephant and for placing instead a Thengalai namam.
4. Various contentions were raised in the trial Court. The trial Court framed six issues on 2-2-1966 and subsequently on 3-4-1968 framed an additional issue. Again on 25-4-1968, it deleted issues 1 and 5 framed on 2-2-1966, but framed 19 additional issues.
5. The trial court held that the established usage of the temple was to paint the temple elephant with Thengalai namam, that it was only in the year 1941 the temple trustees for the first time began parading the temple elephant with Vadagalai mark on the pretext that the elephant was one which was presented by the donor with a condition that it should bear Vadagalai namam, that the painting of Vadagalai namam on the temple elephant was contrary to the established usage of the temple which had been found and recognised in A. S. No. 13 of 1854, that the said decision was binding on the trus
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
