Essentials for religious denominations.

V. Sethuraman, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 119 of 1971 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Nagercoil. The suit was for a declaration that the Thamarakulam Vellala Samudhaya Arya Kulasekhara Nangai Amman Temple Trust is a denominational Trust belonging to the Vellala Samudayam Community residing in Thamarakulam Village, and for a permanent injunction restraining the State of Tamil Nadu and the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, from interfering with the management. There was also a prayer for restraining the defendants from realising any dues or collection from the Trust properties or from disturbing the possession of the properties in the hands of the Trustees.

2. It was stated in the plaint that the Trust owns temple, movable and immovable properties. The management of the temple and the administration of its properties were alleged to be in the hands of the 'Samudayam' through the elected representatives of the community. It was claimed that the maintenance of such an institution as a denominational one was guaranteed by Article 26 of the Indian Constitution and Section 107 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act XXII of 1959. Reference was made to a scheme framed by the District Court of Nagercoil in O.S. No. 162 of 1123 and it was stated that the department of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment had no right to interfere with the management and administration of the institution and its properties. The claim for audit fee and contribution was thus resisted.

3. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, has been impleaded as the second defendant and he has filed a written statement in which he has stated that the temple was a public one to which all sections of Hindu community had access and that, therefore, it was not a denominational temple. There was a paid archaka doing pooja services in the temple twice a day, and there were special poojas on important occasions and festival days. There was no difference between the pooja conducted in this temple and in any other temple. The provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act, were, therefore, stated to be applicable and the plaintiff's institution was liable to contribute the audit fee.

4. The following issues were framed by the trial Court:

1. Whether the suit temple is a denominational one exclusively belonging to the Vellala Community of Tamarakulam?

2. Whether the temple is a Public Religious Institution within the meaning of Tamil Nadu Act XXII of 1959?

3. Whether the 2nd defendant has powers of general supervision and control, even if it is a denominational institution and the institution is liable to pay lawful dues to D-2?

4. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for?

5. Whether the suit is barred by virtue of Sections 63 and 108 of Tamil Nadu Act XXII of 1959?

6. Whether the suit notices are in conformity with law?

7. Whether suit is maintainable as against 1st defendant?

8. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the injunction?

Addl. 9. Whether the 2nd defendant is entitled to collect the audit fees and contribution if any in case the plaint trust is denominational trust?

10. Whether there is any cause of action for this suit?

The suit was dismissed on a preliminary ground, and in appeal in A. S. No. 66 of 1974, the District Court, Nagercoil remanded the suit. It is in pursuance of the remand that the present trial came to be conducted,

5. After discussing the evidence, the learned Subordinate Judge held that the suit temple was a public religious institution and not a denominational trust. This was the answer to issues 1 and 2. Regarding issues 3, 7 and Additional Issue No. 9, the finding was that the plaintiff was liable to pay contribution and audit fee. The suit was held to be not barred by Sections 63 and 108 of Tamil Nadu Act XXII of 1959 This was the answer to issue No. 5 The other issues namely issues 10 and 6 were found in favour of the plaintiff and issues 4 a