Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. RAJASURIA
Om Sakthi Sri Periyapalayathamman Trust, represented by its President
Versus
The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department & Another
A.S.No.825 of 1995
Decided on : 26-06-2008
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act - Trust - Section 70(1) - Act 22 of 1959 - The court discussed the character of the temple as a public or private trust under the Act. The plaintiff trust claimed the temple to be a private temple, while the defendant contended it to be a public religious institution. The court analyzed the trust deed, witness testimonies, and relevant legal provisions to determine the nature of the temple under the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff trust claimed the temple to be a private trust, while the defendant contended it to be a public religious institution. The court analyzed the trust deed, witness testimonies, and relevant legal provisions to determine the nature of the temple under the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff trust is a public trust and the suit temple is a public temple. The trial court's decision was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
Issues: (i) Whether the plaintiff trust is a public trust or a private trust? (ii) Whether the suit temple comes within the purview of the H.R.C.E. Act. (iii) Whether there is any infirmity in the judgment and decree of the trial court?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the trust deed, witness testimonies, and legal provisions to determine the nature of the temple under the Act. It emphasized the distinction between public and private trusts, the presumption of temples in Tamil Nadu being public unless proven otherwise, and the factors indicating public worship in the temple.
Final Decision: The court upheld the trial court's decision, ruling that the plaintiff trust is a public trust and the suit temple is a public temple. The appeal was dismissed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The case involves a dispute over the character of a temple—whether it is a private or public temple—under the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act [judgement_subject].
The plaintiff claims that the temple is a private trust, founded and managed by a specific family, with no right of public worship, and that it does not come under the scope of the Act (!) (!) .
The defendant asserts that the temple is a public religious institution, used by the general public for worship, and therefore falls within the jurisdiction of the Act (!) .
The court analyzed the trust deed, witness testimonies, and legal provisions to determine the nature of the trust and the temple, emphasizing the presumption that temples in Tamil Nadu are public unless proven otherwise (!) (!) (!) .
The court found that the trust was established for public welfare, with the purpose of promoting religious and charitable activities for the benefit of the general public, which supports the classification of the temple as a public temple (!) (!) (!) .
Evidence such as temple activities, public participation, and the nature of the endowments indicated that the temple was used as a place of public worship, reinforcing its classification as a public temple (!) (!) (!) .
The court noted that the burden of proof lies with the party claiming the temple is private, and that the initial presumption in Tamil Nadu favors the temple being public unless convincingly proven otherwise (!) .
The decision included a detailed examination of the temple’s history, usage, and the trust’s purpose, ultimately concluding that the temple is a public temple and falls within the scope of the relevant Act (!) (!) (!) .
The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court’s decision, and confirmed that the temple’s character as a public place of worship is supported by the evidence (!) .
Throughout the case, the court emphasized the importance of evidence regarding the temple’s origin, usage, and endowments in determining its nature, and dismissed claims that lack sufficient proof of private ownership or exclusive family benefit (!) (!) (!) .
These points collectively reflect the court’s reasoning and the legal principles applied in determining the character of the temple under the applicable law.
Niggard and bereft of details, the quintessence of the case of the plaintiff as stood exposited from the plaint in the statutory suit filed under Section 70(1) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act (Act 22 of 1959)(hereafter for short Act)would run thus:-
The plaintiff is a trust. Om Sakthi Sri Periyapalayathamman temple is a private temple dedicated to the worship of the members of the plaintiff trust situated at Lattice Bridge Road, Adyar. The plaintiff trust renovated the said temple which was originally founded by one Duraikannu Gramini who also happened to be the founder of the plaintiff trust. He was worshipping in the temple in his private capacity. The establishment, maintenance and management of the institution remained with the founder of Duraikannu Gramini. No contribution has been taken from the outsiders by the founder. The said temple has no property of its own. It is not getting any income. The two grounds extent in which the said temple is situated was in the occupation of the said Duraikannu Gramini in his personal capacity. In the unregistered document which emerged at the time of the family partition, the said two grounds of land was allotted to the father of Duraikannu Gramini. The temple deity was for being worshipped by the family of the Duraikannu family. While so, the said Duraikannu Gramini handed over the said temple to the plaintiff trust on 8. 1982. But the founder continued to be the member of the trust and he was taking interest in the day to day management and affairs of the said temple. Public are not allowed to worship in the temple as a matter of right. Permissive worship was only allowed in the temple. Hence, the temple is beyond the purview of the H.R.&C.E. Act. The plaintiff, therefore filed O.A.No.30/1982 under Section 63(a) of the H.R.&C.E.Act., before the Deputy Commissioner of H.R.&C.E., who dismissed the said application upholding that it is a public temple. The appeal filed before the Commissioner was also dismissed whereupon the statutory suit was filed with the following prayer:
(a) for setting aside the order of the first defendant passed in A.P.47/87 dated 20.9.91 ; and
(b) for declaring that Sri Periyapalayathamman temple, situated in Lattice Bridge Road, Adayar, Madras-20, is not a religious institution coming under the Act 22 of 1959 ;
2. Gainsaying and challenging, impugning and controvert the allegations/averments in the plaint, the defendant filed the written statement, the pith and marrow of it would run thus:-
The temple by name Arulmighu Periyapalayathamman situated at Lattice Bridge Road, Adyar, Madras is a public religious institution within the meaning of Section 6(20) read with section 6(18) of the Tamilnadu H.R.&C.E. Act 1959. Large number of Hindu public do worship at this temple daily and during festival times without any restriction and they offer kanikkai in the Hundials installed in the temple. Daily two kala poojas are being performed by Archakkas appointed in this temple. Therefore Section 1(3) of the H.R.&C.E. Act is applicable to the said temple. Hence, notice was issued to the present management of the temple by the Assistant Commissioner, H.R.&C.E., Department, Madras in his R.C.No.7251/82 A3, dated 10. 1982, whereupon the plaintiff filed an application in O.A.30/1982 under Section 63(a) of the Act to get a declaration that the suit temple is not a religious institution or a temple within the meaning of the H.R.&C.E. Act. The Deputy commissioner correctly held that the suit temple is a public temple whereupon the appeal was filed, which was also dismissed by the Commissioner. Before the Deputy Commissioner, the plaintiff contended that the alleged private temple was founded 170 years ago by the ancestors of Duraikannu family and it was renovated by Duraikannu Gramini. Accordingly the defendants prayed for the dismissal of the statutory suit.
3. During trial on the side of the plaintiff, its present managing trustee was examined as P
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
