Right to manage the denominational religious institutions.

This Letters Patent Appeal is by the appellants in S.A No. 551 of 1960, before Kunhamed Kutti, J. They were also the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 40 of 1956 on the file of the learned District Munsif of Srivaikuntam. They sought for a declaration that the Pancha Brahma Ambika Mutt Sri Subramania Swami Temple situate in Sattankulam Kasaba, and endowments or properties attached thereto, belonged to members of the Pancha Brahmaviswa Brahmin Community residing in five named villages, and that that community as a body was entitled to manage the institution and its properties, free of interference by the Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, the first defendant in suit, or of the other defendants inclusive of trustee nominated by the Area Committee. The suit was originally decreed by the trial Court, on the basis that the temple was a denominational institution and that the Commissioner (first defendant) or the Area Committee had no right to appoint trustees either to manage the religious institution, or to administer the properties. Ultimately, after certain vicissitudes of trial that need not concern us, the suit was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge in First Appeal. Kunhamed Kutti, J., went into the facts in detail, and also the relevant provisions of law that could apply to the controversy, inclusive of Article 26 of the Constitution, and came to the conclusion that the First Appellate Court was correct, and that the Second Appeal should be dismissed. However, leave was granted by the learned Judge and hence the Letters Patent Appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiffs now before us.

With regard to the actual facts, there has been some difficulty, and it appears to us that some degree of vagueness and confusion is evident in the record. However, when arguments were submitted before us by the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader, it became fairly clear that the main conclusion of fact could not be disturbed in Second Appeal, and that it is specific in character. We do not think it is necessary to set forth here the decisions of the Supreme Court to the effect that this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction with regard to Second Appeals, will really have no power to interfere with an explicit finding of fact based on the appreciation of evidence ; that is the case, even if this Court might have felt inclined to arrive at a different conclusion on the merits, on an independent appreciation of the evidence ; in other words, even if this Court were of the view that the finding of fact was erroneous. In certain decisions, the matter has even been expressed in the acute form that this Court would have no-jurisdiction, in Second Appeal, to interfere with a finding of fact, pure and simple,, though deemed to be erroneous. We think it is sufficient, here, to set forth the main finding of fact in this suit in the very words of the First Appellate Court. Those passages are as follows:-

“ Thus the exclusive right of the five village people has not been established and the right of the Viswa Karma Brahmin Community of the district has not been negatived even by the trial Court as there is no evidence at all to that effect.”

Again

“ All the members of the Viswa Karma Brahmin Community are entitled to have an interest in the suit institution.”

Thus, we may take it as established on the evidence that this religious institution, though indisputably denominational in character, does not belong merely to the Viswa Karma Brahmin community members of certain villages, or of five named villages, but to the members of that community in the district as a whole. Undoubtedly, it is this corporate body which will have the right to manage the temple and to administer the endowments, presumably through the elected trustees ; undoubtedly the rights of this body will be entitled to protection under Article 26 of the Constitution, particularly sub-clause (d). The right of any corporate body,