Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 3428
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.C. ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department
Versus
V. Jegathambal & Others
A.S.No.326 of 2001
Decided on: 19-09-2008
For the Petitioner:M.R. Murugesan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:R1 to R8, T. Murugamanickam, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for proper exhibition and production of the original Will in accordance with the law to determine the nature of the temple.
Headnote:
Private Temple - Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act - Section 6(20), Section 6(18) - The court discussed the interpretation of the Will dated 6. 1926 and its implications on the dedication of the temple, the intention of the testator, and the characteristics of a public temple. The court highlighted the legal provisions under the Act and their application in determining the nature of the temple.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs claimed that the temple was a private temple exclusively belonging to their family, while the defendant contended that it was a public religious institution dedicated to the Hindu public.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Will was not exhibited in accordance with the law and the original Will was not produced before the trial court, leading to the interference with the findings of the trial judge. The court held that the findings of the trial judge were liable to be set aside.
Issues: The issues revolved around the nature of the temple, the interpretation of the Will, and the validity of the findings based on the Will.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of proper exhibition of the Will and the non-production of the original Will, leading to the interference with the trial judge's findings.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the decree and judgment of the trial judge were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the trial court for deciding the issue afresh after allowing the parties to mark the original of the Will in accordance with the law.
1. This appeal has been directed against the decree and judgment in O.S.No.720 of 1995 on the file of the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode.
2. The short facts of the plaint relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as follows:-
The common ancestor of the plaintiffs was one Vadamalai Pillai of Karungalpalayam, Erode Town. He was a pious man and was a staunch Vaishnavite. He was doing poojas at his house to his Kula Deivam Sri Venugopalaswamy. Later on he constructed a superstructure at his place and installed the deity of Sri Arulmigu Venugopalaswamy. He was doing poojas and worshipping to the said deity with his family members alone. The said Vadamalai Pillai founded the said temple for the benefit of his family alone. It is an ancient temple. He dedicated the temple for the benefit of his family. His family members alone used to come and offer poojas, worship etc. The said Vadamalai Pillai constructed the said temple out of his own funds and he did not collect any funds from outside. He was exclusively in management and control of the said temple till his death. There was no dedication of the said temple to the public. The public are not allowed to come and worship in the said temple as of right. In fact public do not at all come on worship in the said temple. There is no Gopuram, Prakaram or Dwajasthambam etc. in the said temple. All these features would go to show that it is a private temple exclusively owned and maintained by the said Vadamalai Pillai and his family members alone. The suit temple is a private temple belonging to the plaintiffs alone. The suit temple has never been used as a place of public worship. While so the said Vadamalai Pillai was maintaining and looking after the affairs of the suit temple till his death. During his life time the said Vadamalai Pillai had executed a registered Will dated 6. 1926 under which he has appointed the person next in line of succession to him to be in management of the suit temple. The said temple was in the management of Vadamalai Pillai till his death. After the death of Vadamalai Pillai, his only son K.V.Venugopal Pillai succeeded to him in the management of the suit temple and he was exclusively maintaining the suit temple till his death on 9. 1989. The said K.V.Venugopal Pillai during his life time moved the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Comibatore, under Section 63-A of the Act 22/1959 to declare that the suit temple is a private religious institution. The Deputy Commissioner after calling for a report, on the basis of the evidence and on appreciation of the evidence both oral and documentary has allowed O.A.No.37 of 1986 on 12. 1987, which was filed by K.V.Venugopal Pillai. The plaintiffs being the heirs of the said K.V.Venugopal Pillai were surprised to know that the defendant has suo motto initiated proceedings in Suo Motto Revision No.4 of 1991 and on an erroneous view the learned Commissioner has set aside the orders of the Deputy Commissioner by the order dated 25. 1995. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Commissioner, HR & CE Department, the plaintiff has filed the suit under Section 70 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act. The suit temple is in exclusive control and management of the plaintiffs and their forefathers for more than three generations. Hence, the suit temple is to be declared as a private temple exclusively belonging to the plaintiffs alone. Hence, the suit.
3. The defendant in his written statement would contend as follows:-
Arulmigu Venugopalaswamy temple situated in Kaveri Road, Karungalpalayam, Erode Taluk, Periar District is a religious institution as defined under Section 6(20) of the Act and the said temple has been brought under the control of the Department in the year 1975. When the temple was brought under the control of the Department it ws managed by one late K.V.Venugopal Pillai and V.Thiruvengadam Pillai. One Thiru Vedamalai s
