Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 2955
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R. SHIVAKUMAR
Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Admn. Department
Versus
Palani Poosari & Others
A.S.No.822 of 1997
Decided on: 05-08-2009
For the Appellant: Murugesan, Addl. Govt. Pleader (H.R & C.E).
For the Respondents:W.C. Thiruvengadam, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the recognition of hereditary trusteeship based on evidence of continuous management of the temple by the plaintiffs' family, as well as the legal principle that poojaris can also be considered trustees when they manage the affairs of a temple with the knowledge of the worshippers.
Headnote:
Hereditary Trusteeship - Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act - Section 63(b) of Act 22 of 1959 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed Section 6(11) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, which defines 'Hereditary Trustee' and Section 63(b) which gives power to decide whether a trustee holds office as a hereditary trustee. The court also referred to case law to establish the legal principles regarding hereditary trusteeship and the dual capacity of poojaris as trustees.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased Veeraswami Poosari and Palani Poosari filed a suit seeking a declaration as hereditary trustees of Sri Kamatchi Amman temple. The suit was contested by the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, Chennai, who claimed that the temple was managed by the villagers and non-hereditary trustees appointed by the department.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs had provided sufficient evidence, both oral and documentary, to establish that the management of the temple had been vested with their family hereditarily for several generations. The court also noted that there was no evidence to prove the claims of the defendant regarding the management of the temple by non-hereditary trustees or villagers.
Issues: The main issues were whether the plaintiffs were only poojaris of the temple and not hereditary trustees, and whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the relief of declaration sought for in the plaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence provided by the plaintiffs, including oral testimonies and documentary evidence such as electricity and kist receipts, to establish the hereditary trusteeship of the plaintiffs. The court also referred to case law to support the presumption that poojaris can also be considered trustees when they manage the affairs of a temple with the knowledge of the worshippers.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court, granting the plaintiffs the declaration as hereditary trustees of the temple.
P.R. Shivakumar, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai dated 22. 1992 made in O.S.No.154 of 1986. The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. (Administration) Department, Chennai-34, who figured as defendant in the suit is the appellant herein. The plaintiffs 2 to 7 In the suit are the respondents in this appeal.
2. The deceased Veeraswami Poosari, who figured as the first plaintiff in the suit and Palani Poosari, the present first respondent who figured as the second plaintiff in the suit, preferred a Original Application under Section 63(b) of Act 22 of 1959 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Nagapattinam for a declaration that they held office of the trusteeship of Sri Kamatchi Amman temple also called as Mariamman temple situated at Peravoor Village, Mayiladuthurai Taluk as hereditary trustees. The said Original Application was later on, transferred to the file of the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, Mayiladuthurai on administrative grounds and numbered as O.A.No.63 of 1980. The said application was filed pursuant to the notification issued by the Assistant Commissioner. H.R. & C.E. Department, Kumbakonam calling for applications from the public for appointment of non-hereditary trustees to the said temple. After enquiry, the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, Mayiladuthurai by an order dated 28. 1983 dismissed the said application holding that the office of trusteeship of the said temple was not hereditary.
3. As against the said order of the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, Mayiladuthurai, the deceased first plaintiff and the second plaintiff preferred an appeal under Section 69(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959 to the Commissioner, H.R & C.E. Department, Chennai in A.P.No.118 of 1983. The Commissioner. H.R. & C.E. Department, Chennai (the appellant in this appeal), after hearing the Appeal Petition preferred before him, dismissed the said appeal petition by an order dated 14. 1986, confirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, Mayiladuthurai. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal of the Appeal Petition, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 filed a statutory suit under Section 70(1) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959) before the learned Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai to set aside the order of the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. (Administration) Department, Chennai by which the order of the Deputy Commissioner, H.R & C.E. Department, Mayiladuthurai had been confirmed. The suit was taken on file in the Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai as O.S.No.154 of 1986.
4. The averments based on which the relief was sought for in the suit, in brief, are as follows:
(a) The suit temple viz. Sri Kamatchi amman temple also called as Mariamman temple, situated in Peravoor Village, Mayiladuthurai Taluk was originally founded by the descendants of the Ministers of Great Chola Regime, Initially, the temple’s deity had been installed in very small tiled building and the management of the temple had been entrusted to one Arumuga Padayachi, the paternal ancestor of the second plaintiff (first respondent herein). For more than three generations and over 60 years, the management of the temple was with the above said Arumuga Padayachi and his descendants.
(b) It was Narayana Poosari, son of grand father of the first appellant/second defendant who collected huge amounts from the village public and outsiders and converted the tilted structure into a Vimanam with a Kalasam. After a period of about 30 to 40 years, he again put up an-Artha Mandapam in front of the sanctum-sanctorum. Thereafter, Singaram Poosari, the father of the second plaintiff and the deceased first plaintiff Veeraswami Poosari put up a Maha Mandapam to the temple. The plaintiffs 1 to 2 also did Maha Kumbabishekam on a grand scale in the year 1966. The temple had small holdin
