1992 Supreme(Mad) 241

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL HADI
Seeni Thevar and others
Versus
M.S.Velayutha Raja and another
S.A.No. 1858 of 1984
Decided On : 29-04-1992

A denominational temple is a public temple which falls within the definition of the term ‘temple’ under Sec.6(20) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.

Headnote:

TEMPLE - PUBLIC OR DENOMINATIONAL - DISTINCTION - DENOMINATIONAL TEMPLE - MEANING - RIGHT OF MANAGEMENT - LOSS OF RIGHT - REVIVAL AFTER CONSTITUTION - IMPOSSIBILITY - PRESUMPTION OF CONTINUITY - APPLICABILITY - INFERENCE OF ESTABLISHMENT OF TEMPLE - NOT PERMISSIBLE - DEDICATION TO PUBLIC - PLEA AND PROOF - NECESSITY - RES JUDICATA - APPLICABILITY - EXPLANATION VI TO SECTION 11, C.P.C. - NOT APPLICABLE - CIVIL COURT - JURISDICTION - SECTION 108 OF THE TAMIL NADU HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1959 - APPLICABILITY.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiffs 1, 2 and 4 to 7, representing "the Hindu general public in the City of Rajapalayam" filed a suit for declaration that the suit institution is a "public religious institution belonging to the Hindu public in general as against the exclusive claim by the defendants on behalf of Rajus of Singaraja Kottai, Rajapalayam with a right of entry for all the Hindu citizens into it for worship in pujas according to the usage by Panda-rams of the "temple" (a temple called Arulmigu Mariamman Koil, Pudupalayam.) and for consequential injunction.

Finding of the Court:

1. The suit temple was not a public temple, but it was a denominational temple belonging to Singarajakottai Rajus. 2. The suit was barred by res judicata, by reason of the judgment in O.S.No.100 of 1975 on the file of Sub Court, Ramanathapuram.

Issues: 1. Whether the suit temple is a public or denominational temple? 2. Whether the suit is barred by res judicata by reason of the judgment in O.S.No.100 of 1975 on the file of Sub Court, Ramanathapuram?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. A denominational temple is a public temple which falls within the definition of the term ‘temple’ under Sec.6(20) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. 2. The question whether a temple is a public one (coming under the Act) or a private one (not coming under the Act), can be decided only by the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. Department under Sec.63(a) of the Act, and not by the Civil Court. 3. The term “religious denomination” is not defined under the Act or in the Constitution of India, but it has been judicially interpreted by the Supreme Court in several decisions. 4. Art.26 of the Constitution of India guarantees the fundamental rights to every religious denomination. 5. Art.26 does not create or confer the above said rights, but only "safeguards and guarantees them as fundamental rights. 6. The right to administer the properties never vested in the denomination or had been validly surrendered by it or has otherwise been effectively and irretrievably lost to it Art.26 cannot be successfully invoked. 7. The above said ruling would apply to a case under Art.26(a) also because the Supreme Court itself has observed in the above said decision that the observations in Durgah Committee v. Hussain Ali, (1962)1 S.C.R. 383: A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1402. apply equally 10 Art.30 (1). 8. The emphasis of the learned counsel for the appellants, is, that that by itself would not be enough to hold that the suit temple is a denominational temple exclusively belonging to the above said religious denomination of Rajus, since there is admittedly no evidence as to who established or founded the said temple and since admittedly the temple was in existence even much prior to 1880, or rather even prior to 1807, as shown by Exs. A-21 and A-22 documents. 9. An inference of the establishment of the suit temple by the respondents-Rajus cannot be drawn in the present case also. 10. Even regarding the management, the learned counsel submits that it cannot be said that the management vested with the respondents-Rajus continuously without interruption for several decades. 11. According to the said Counsel, even before the commencement of the Constitution, the said Rajus lost their right to manage the temple and that hence, the said right cannot revive after the constitution pursuant to Art.26. 12. The present plaintiffs were not parties to O.S.No.100 of 1975 or to the subsequent appeals therefrom. 13. The rights of the Hindu Community are not the same as that of the Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. Department, who was the defendant in O.S.No.100 of 1975. Therefore, there is no bar of res judicata. 14. The present suit cannot be considered as not maintainable in a civil court pursuant to Sec.108 of the Act, in view of the decisions of this Court in Ananda Baliga v. Ananteswar Temple, (1952)1 M.L.J. 678 and Asarimar Samudayam v. Natarajan Asari, (1973)2 M.L.J. 306, Santhana Gopala Chettiar v. Seetharama Chettiar, (1968)2 M.L.J. 401 and the decision of the Supreme Court in Ugam Singh v. Kesrimal, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 2540.

Final Decision: The second appeal is allowed, the judgments and decrees of both the courts below are set aside and the suit is decreed as prayed for. However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs throughout.