Gokulakrishnan, J. — Plaintiff is the appellant. The case of the plaintiff is that his forefathers established a Hanumar temple and installed the idol Hanumar in it and worshipped it as a family deity. From generation to generation, pooja was conducted by the members of the plaintiff’s family at their own cost and expense. The temple had no other property or income. The forefathers of the plaintiff had great faith and fervour in Bajana and hence Bajana was conducted by the temple. The said temple was thus used as a private temple and as a private Bajana Matam. There is no festival conducted in the temple. The people interested in Bajana used to attend and worship when the plaintiff’s forefathers used to do Bajana. Thus, the institution become popular in Madurai city. On account of its popularity, the then Rajah of Sivaganga who was creating endowments in various temples also offered to the temple some paditharam. Similarly from Sarkar Kattatalai also, some paditharam, was offered. So far as the offering from the Sivaganga Zamin is concerned, it has been stepped, Bat the Sarkar kattalai is supplied through Sri Meenakshi Devasthanam. The offering is only 1/32 Madras measure of rice and 1/64 Madras measure of oil. The same is hardly sufficient. From Sarkar kattalai Rs. 2-1-0 is given for Navarathiri Pooja. As for Sivaganga kattalai, they give Rs.2-8-0 per mensem. At present the plaintiff is the only hereditary trustee and archaka of the temple. The plaintiff and members of his family are living in the house on the southern side of the temple. Neivedanam is cooked in the house and offered to the deity. Plaintiff’s ancestors were also living in the said portion. On representation by one S. S. Guruswami, the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board, Madurai, directed the plaintiff to get a declaration that the Hanumantharayan Bhajana Matam is a private one and that the plaintiff is hereditary trustee thereof. The plaintiff accordingly filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madurai. The said proceeding was taken after due notices and publication, and none came forward to object to the grant of the reliefs prayed for in the application. No one claiming either as person interested in the Bhajana Matam or as worshipper of the deity in the Bhajana Matam came forward claiming the institution as a public temple. The plaintiff himself has spent money for constructing a tower over the Bhajana Matam and has been making improvements from out of his own funds. Bhajana is conducted by inviting Bhagawathars and the invitees alone attend the same. While so, the defendant passed an order dated 30th July, 1960, declaring the Bhajana Matam as a public temple, and the plaintiff to be its hereditary trustee. On appeal, the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras, dismissed the appeal on 10th October, 1961. Hence the plaintiff came forward with the suit for a declaration that the Hanumantharayan Bhajana Matam is a private institution.

2. The defendant, who is the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras, filed a written statement contending that the plaint temple comes within the definition in section 6 (20) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, XXII of 1959 and that therefore the orders passed by the authorities concerned are correct. There is no proof that the plaintiff’s forefathers estabblished the Hanumar temple, nor is there any proof that the site over which the temple was constructed was property belonging to the plaintiff’s forefathers. The public gather at the temple as of right. The fact that paditharam was given by the Rajah of Sivaganga and Sri Meenakshi Devasthanam, Madurai, by creating endowments, and the fact that not only money but also things like oil, rice and other materials are given regularly to the Hanuman temple, clearly establish the fact beyond doubt that the temple is a pu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document