Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 2396
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.C. ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN
The Commissioner H.R.& C.E.Admn, Department Nungambakkam High Road
Versus
Lalithananda Saraswathi Baktha Samajam Rept. By its Secretary C.H. Marka Bandu
A.S.No. 402 of 1997
Decided on: 14-07-2008
For the Petitioners:M.R. Murugesan, Spl. Govt.Pleader, Advocate.
For the Respondent:K. Kannan, Senior Counsel, R. Sunil Kumar, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the absence of essential temple features and the criteria for a public temple under the Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959 are crucial in determining whether an institution is a public temple or a private institution.
Headnote:
Temple - Private Institution - Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959 - Sec.6(17), Sec.6(18) - The court discussed the definition of religious charity and religious institution under the Act, emphasizing the absence of essential temple features such as gopuram, dwajasthambam, balibeedam, and hundials in determining whether the institution is a public temple or a private temple.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over whether a samajam was a public temple or a private institution. The samajam was established by a saint and was maintained by devotees of various religions. The defendants claimed that the samajam was a public temple, while the plaintiffs sought a declaration that it was a private institution.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the samajam was not a public temple as it lacked essential temple features and did not meet the criteria for a public temple under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959. The court also set aside the perpetual injunction granted by the trial court, stating that a blanket injunction against the H.R& C.E. Department was not justified.
Issues: The main issues were whether the samajam was a public temple or a private institution, whether the plaintiff was entitled to perpetual injunction, and whether the decree and judgment of the trial court should be set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the absence of essential temple features and the criteria for a public temple under the Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959. The court emphasized that the presence of gopuram, dwajasthambam, balibeedam, prakaram, and hundials is necessary to determine whether an institution is a public temple.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the perpetual injunction but confirming the declaration that the samajam was a private institution. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
Under this appeal, the decree and Judgment in O.S.No.163 of 1988 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam is under challenge.
2. The averments in the plaint in brief sans irrelevant particulars are as follows:
In the year 1930, a noble and eminent saint called Sri Lalithananada Saraswathi Swamy came and settled at the foot of the hill of Pasumalai in Melolakkur Village. Many devotees were attracted in and around the village due to his divinely and sacred life. Even devotees from Andhra Pradesh used to throng the village to pay respects to him. Even muslims and christians were also came and paid their respects. Sri Lalithananda Saraswathi Swamy used to perform yogas and also assisted in performing Kumbabishekam to the local Subramaniasamy Hill temple and arranged for poojas and festivals in the said temple. To cater the needs of the devotees, Swamy thought it fit to construct a pucca premises. Accordingly in 1941, a building was put up in an extent of 5 acres 36 cents in R.S.No.4/1 with a well and garden from out of the funds collected from the followers of the swamiji. In the said Ashramam, Swamiji began to reside and received his devotees and rendered service to them. On 211. 1951, the Swamiji attained Mahasamadhi and his followers and worshippers buried the body in the above premises and constructed a Samadhi building. A lingam was brought from the river Narmada and installed in His memory and daily poojas are performed to the Samadhi. On the Samijis Mukthi day viz., on pusala Ekathasi day in the month of Karthigai Guru Pooja is performed on a grand scale followed by Mandalabishekam , the 45th day poor feeding is also done on these days. The Vigrahams of Sri Subramaniar, Sri Vinayagar, Sri Amman etc worshipped by Swamiji were also placed by the side of the Samadhi. The institution is not a temple within the meaning of Section 6(17) of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act (hereinafter referred to " Act"). The samadhi has not been dedicated for public worship nor the public has endowed any properties for the institution. The devotees of the Swamiji have formed themselves as a Baktha Samajam which has since been registered as a society under the Societies Registration Act. The devotees are not exclusively Hindus. Only the devotees worship at the samadhi and participate in the Guru Pooja functions. The public do not worship or participate in these celebrations as of right. There is no Gopuram nor Sethampam nor Beedam nor any festival in the premises which are necessary for a temple. In addition to the Samadhi premises with an extent of 5 acres 35 cents , the Samajam has purchased one acre seventy seven cents of dry land in 1964 from out of its funds. At present the land is a barren one and is without any cultivation. The plaintiffs samajam has been registered society and maintaining the proper accounts regarding the income and expenses. There is no interference in the management of the samadhi either by any private person or by the authorities of H.R.&C.E. Department. On 5. 1988, the plaintiffs are worried to hear rumours of intended interference by the defendants into the affairs of the plaintiff samajam. The defendants fully aware that the suit Samadhi is not a religious institution coming within the definition given in the Act. As the plaintiff apprehends unilateral action on the part of the authorities, it has become necessary to file the suit for declaration that the suit Samajam is a private Institution and that it does not come under the Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959 and grant a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner with the management of the plaintiff of the same and for costs.
3. D1 and D3 have adopted the written statement filed by the second defendant which runs as follows:
The suit is not maintainable. The averment that the devotees of Shri Lalithananada Saraswathi swamy and the worshippers of the suit institution are not only Hindus but also Muslims and Chr
