Rajamannar, C.J.-The only question in this appeal against the judgment of Raghava Rao, J., in A.S. No. 128 of 1949 is whether the temple known as the Sree Subramaniaswami temple in the village of Vadamadurai in Tiruvallur Taluk in the district of Chinglept is a temple which falls within the definition of "temple" in section 9(12) of Madras Act (II of 1927.) That definition is as follows:-

"'Temple' means a place, by whatever designation known, used as a place of public religious worship and dedicated to, or for the benefit of, or used as of right by, the Hindu community or any section thereof, as a place of religious worship".

The question arose on account of the action taken by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras. The hereditary trustee of the temple filed a petition under section 84 (2) of the Act for a declaration that the said temple is a private temple not falling within the definition of "temple" in the Act. The learned District Judge of Chingleput held that the institution in question is a temple as defined in the Act and hence dismissed the petition. On appeal to this Court, Raghava Rao, J., reversed the decision of the learned District Judge and held that the institution did not fulfil the requirements of the statutory definition of a temple. He therefore allowed the appeal and the petition of the trustee. This is an appeal against the decision of Raghava Rao, J, by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras.

The following facts are not in dispute. One Raju Mudaliar, the maternal uncle of the respondent, was born in the village of Vadamadurai where he owned landed property. He subsequently migrated to Madras and there prospered and made a large fortune. He had no wife and children; and his nearest relation was his nephew the respondent. Raju Mudaliar himself was living in Madras in his own house in Govindappa Naicken Street. Evidently Raju Mudaliar was of a very pious and charitable disposition. He constructed a Dharmachatram in 1919 and endowed property for the upkeep of the chatram. He thereafter constructed a temple for Sree Subramaniaswami and installed therein the idols of Sree Subramaniaswami, Sree Valli and Sree Deva Sena. The stone inscription in the said temple gives details of the construction and the installation. In so far as it is material for the purpose of this appeal, this inscription runs thus:

"I have constructed a new temple for Sree Subramaniaswami and raised a flower garden in S. No. 295-A-1 in the said Vadamadurai village .... and installed therein the Sree Sivasubramania idol with Sri Valli, Deva Sena; performed kumbabishekam for the same .... For meeting the expenses of the daily morning and evening puja and panchaparva utsavam to be conducted for the same according to dittam I have executed a settlement deed. If anybody intend causing any harm to the aforesaid charity after my death, he shall be guilty of the sin of having killed a karampasu . ... at Benares."

The deed of settlement, Exhibit B-4, is dated 5th July, 1937. The terms of this deed are very important and, in our opinion, practically conclusive of the matter in dispute. The following are the relevant clauses in this deed:-

"I have constructed with my funds on a piece of 27 cents land in S. No. 295-A-1, A/2 in the said Vadamadurai village a temple for Sree Subramaniaswami, a well and a vahana mandapam, a house for the residence of the Gurukkal and a kitchen, etc., and installed in the temple the idols of Sree Subramaniaswami, Sree Valli and Deva Sena, and for the utsava vigrahams (procession idols) pertaining to the same. I got jewels, vahanams made for them, and I have been getting the morning and evening pujas conducted for them.

I have reared a nandavanam on a piece of land measuring 10 cents in S. No. 295-A-1/B in the aforesaid Vadamadurai village for supply of flowers for the daily puja of the aforesaid Sree Subramaniaswami and built stone walls all round it, got flower plants planted and the said fl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document