A temple can be considered a denominational temple only if it satisfies the criteria laid down by the courts, such as having a common faith based on religion, a spiritual organization, a distinctive name, belief in a particular religious teacher or Guru, common religious tenets and preachings prescribed by the Guru, and being founded by a religious leader of the community for the spiritual benefit of the said community.

1. Defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants in the Second Appeal. The suit O.S. No. 389 of 1979 was filed by the respondents herein as representing the temple Arulmigu Muthallamman Temple, Vellakarai village, before the District Munsif Court, Cuddalore, for a declaration that Arulmigu Muthallamman Temple, Vellakarai village, is a denominational temple exclusively belonging to the Vannia Community of Vellakarai Village and for a permanent injunction restraining the appellants and the third defendant Area Committee from interfering with the affairs of the Management of the said temple and its properties.

2. The case as set out in the plaint was that Arulmigu Muthallamman Temple situate in Vellakarai village was a very ancient temple and the same was founded by the members of Vannia Community of Vellakarai village. The present temple structure was actually constructed by the members of Vannia Community of Vellakarai village out of the funds contributed by the Vannia Community. The entire management of the temple had always been with the Vannia Community. The festivals were celebrated in the suit temple by the members of Vannia Community of Vellakarai by collecting the funds from the members of Vannia Community. The Trustees also had been elected from among the members of the Vannia Community of Vellakarai. Except the members of the Vannia Community of Vellakarai, nobody had got title or interest in the suit temple; the suit temple was a denominational temple exclusively belonging to the Vanniars of Vellakarai village, the village itself consisted of only Vannia Community. The H.R. & C.E. Department had no jurisdiction over the suit temple. The second appellant was taking steps to appoint non-hereditary Trustees for the suit temple and trying to interfere with the administration of the temple by the Trustees appointed by the Vannia Community of Vellakarai village. The suit had therefore been filed for the relief already mentioned.

3. The second respondent filed a written statement and it was adopted by the first respondent and the third defendant. The averments as set out in the written statement of the second respondent are as follows:

The suit temple was not a denominational temple exclusively belonging to the Vannia Community of Vellakarai village. The provisions of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act were applicable and the appellants and the third defendant were entitled to appoint Trustees in respect of the suit temple. The respondents were not the duly elected Trustees of the temple. It was also not correct to say that there were no other community people in the suit village. The temple was not liable to be exempted from the provisions of the H.R. & C.E. Act. It was brought to the notice of the second appellant that the temple had not been properly managed and as such, by invoking the provisions of Section 49 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, notice was issued to the temple. The Department was entitled to appoint Trustees and the suit was liable to be dismissed.

4. The trial court framed five main issues and one additional issue. The only issue relevant for consideration was the additional issue which was as follows:

“Whether the suit temple is a denominational temple belonging exclusively to the members of the Vannia Community of Vellakarai village?”

5. The trial court found that there was no acceptable evidence to show that the temple was actually founded for the exclusive worship and management by the members belonging to the Vannia Community. Even in the statement Ex. B1 given by the Trustees of the temple it was not claimed that the said temple was a denominational temple. The respondents had filed to establish that the suit temple was founded exclusively by the Vannia Community, that the same was meant to be the exclusive property of the Vanniars of Vellakari and that the Vellakari Vanniars alone were entitled to manage the affairs of the temple to the exclusion of the membe