Govinda Menon, J.-A dispute having arisen as to whether the Sri Subramaniaswami Temple situated in Pulicat village, Ponneri taluk, is a temple as defined in section 9(12) of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, it was decided by the Hindu Religious Endowment Board that the institution is a temple as defined in the Act. Thereupon the appellants before us, who claimed that the institution is a private temple belonging absolutely to a family of which they and respondents 2 to 12 formed members filed O.P. No. 3 of 1950 before the District Court of Chingleput under section 84(2) of the Act to set aside the order of the Board deciding that the institution is a temple as defined in the Act. The learned District Judge by dismissing the application confirmed the order of the Board and this appeal is preferred by the aggrieved parties under section 84(3) of the Act.

Section 9(12) of Act II of 1927 which is the statutory provision with which we are now concerned defines a temple as 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 public religious worship. Therefore the necessary criteria for bringing an institution within this definition are: (1) it must be used as a place of public religious worship; (2) it must be dedicated to, or for the benefit of the Hindu community or any section thereof; (3) it must be used as of right by the Hindu community or a section thereof as a place of public religious worship. Unless the conditions contemplated by this section are complied with, it cannot be held that the institution is a temple as defined in the Act. The learned District Judge has held that in view of certain decisions, the presumption is that the institution is a temple as defined in the Act. The learned District Judge has held that in view of certain decisions, the presumption is that the institution is a public one, and he who disputes that presumption, must prove the contrary. Adverting to the evidence let in before him the learned Judge was not convinced that that presumption has been rebutted. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that on the evidence the only conclusion that is possible is that the temple cannot come within the purview of the definition. It is urged (1) that there is no evidence of any dedication; (2) that there are no endowments belonging to the temple as such; (3) that even the temple has been built on a land purchased by the trustees’ family for a sum of Rs. 200 and (4) that there are no kattalais belonging to the institution.

Whatever might be the tests laid down in decisions pronounced prior to Madras Act (II of 1927) so far as the present dispute is concerned, the matter has to be clinched by the definition in section 9(12) and therefore we do not propose to discuss, as the learned District Judge had done decisions which have no bearing upon the interpretation of the term. The only case where the definition in section 9(12) did not form the subject of consideration but in which the question whether a temple is a public one or not was decided and which we propose to consider is the Privy Council decision in Koman Nair v. Achuthan Nair1. It is unnecessary to discuss the observations which peculiarly pertain to the facts of that case. Their Lordships say that the crucial point for deciding the nature of a temple is whether there has been a dedication to the public and if that dedication cannot be ascertained with any degree of certainty from the evidence, then the mere fact that in later times members of the public were allowed to worship in the temple without any let or hindrance would not make the temple a public one. For, as has been more than once noticed in decisions of this Court, it is against the sentiments of any Hindu to prevent the worship of a deity wherever installed, be it in a private house or in a public temple. There has been nume

Click Here to Read the rest of this document