Back
1999 Supreme(Mad) 509
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T. DAVID CHRISTIAN
The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E.(A) Department
Versus
Tirukovilur Adhinam Tirupappuliyur Srimath Gnaniar Madalayam by Srilasri Sivashanmugha Arukugha Meignana Sivachariar Swamigal rep. by Power of Attorney agent A. Somasundaram
A.S. No. 29 of 1985
Decided On :Decided on : 07-06-1999
For the Appellant : R. Balasubramaniam, Special Government Pleader.
For the Respondent:K. Sekar for M/s. Sarvabhauman Associates, Advocates.
A temple is considered a private temple if it is constructed on land purchased by the founder in his own name, funded by the founder, intended for the use of the founder and his followers, and not dedicated to the public.
Headnote:
PRIVATE TEMPLE - SRI MATH GNANIYAR MADALAYAM - SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION - TEMPLE CONSTRUCTED BY MADALAYAM - FUNDS PROVIDED BY MADALAYAM - TEMPLE INTENDED FOR MADALAYAM AND ITS FOLLOWERS - NO DEDICATION TO PUBLIC - ORDER OF COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT BOARD HOLDING TEMPLE AS PUBLIC TEMPLE SET ASIDE - APPEAL DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, Srimath Gnaniyar Madalayam, represented by its Madathipathi, filed a suit for a declaration and injunction, claiming that the suit temple is a private temple belonging to the Madalayam and not a public temple. The temple was constructed by the Madalayam using its own funds and was intended for the use of the Madathipathi and his followers. The defendant, the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, had issued an order holding that the temple was a public temple, which the plaintiff challenged in the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff had established that the suit temple was a private temple belonging to the Madalayam. The temple was constructed on land purchased by the Madathipathi in his own name, and the funds for construction came from the Madalayam. The temple was intended for the use of the Madathipathi and his followers, and there was no dedication to the public. The court also found that the order of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, holding that the temple was a public temple was not supported by the evidence and was liable to be set aside.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit temple is a private temple belonging to the plaintiff madam and not a public temple? 2. Whether the order dated 27.2.1980 passed by the defendant Board is liable to be set aside?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the following factors indicated that the suit temple was a private temple: (1) the temple was constructed on land purchased by the Madathipathi in his own name; (2) the funds for construction came from the Madalayam; (3) the temple was intended for the use of the Madathipathi and his followers; (4) there was no dedication to the public; (5) the temple was administered by the Madathipathi through his personal agents and servants; (6) poojaries were appointed by the Madalayam and their remunerations were met from the funds of the Madalayam; (7) none from the public had any say or voice in the matter of administering the temple and Madalayam; (8) funds of the Madalayam and temple were never subjected to any audit or inspection by any body representing the public at large; (9) there was previous litigation where the temple had been held as a private temple; (10) the origin of the temple was very well known and there was ample evidence, both oral and documentary, which in no way helped the case put forth by the defendant.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant, upholding the decision of the lower court that the suit temple was a private temple belonging to the Madalayam and not a public temple. The court also set aside the order of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, holding that the temple was a public temple.
Appeal against the judgment and decree made in O.S. No. 227 of 1980, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Vellore, dated 24.12.1982.
2. Defendant is the appellant.
3. Plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration and injunction making the following averments Plaintiff is Srimath Gnaniyar Madalayam, represented by its Madathipathi through his Power of Attorney. Plaintiff Madam is known as Srimath Gnaniyar Madalayam and Madathipathi has got his peedam in South Arcot in Tirupapaliyoor. Said Peedam was started in 17th century by the previous Madathipathis and the Founder is known as Arumugha Maignana Swamigal. Present Madathipathi is 7th in succession and he is known as Sivashanmugha Arumugha Meignana Sivachariar Swamigal. Plaintiff Madam has got its branches a t Arani, Tirukovilur, Virudhachalam, Sivakundram, Tirupapaliyoor, Tiruvanamalai and other places. There are Madams in all these places belonging to the plaintiff Madam. In all these Madams there is a temple of Subramania Swamigal, who is called as Upasanamoorthy. Subramania Swamy is the Upasanamurthy or the main deity in the temple. Even in the idol of Subramania Swamy ‘Sivalingam’ is inscribed which is the symbol of the plaintiffs Madam. The plaintiff Madam started its branch in 1799 at Arani in North Arcot District. By spending funds of the Madam, Madathipathi purchased lands from private persons and put up Madam and temple inside it, where the main deity Subramania Swami is installed along with his consorts Valli and Deivanai. Attached to the temple, there is a flower garden or nandavanam and the temple is situated inside the Madam. There is access to the temple straight from the Madam and poojas are performed every day with flowers taken from Nandavanam situated in the Madam. Madathipathi was administrating the temple from its inception and the Madam has also purchased two houses in Arani and from the rent collected from those houses, the temple is maintained. Entire expenses of temple and the Madam is spent out of the expenses of the Madam. Madam and the temple were established for the sole benefit of the Madathipathi and his followers or Sishyas. The temple is not a public temple coming under the jurisdiction of the defendant Hindu Religious and Charitable Endownment Board. Madathipathi use to visit all the branches once in a year or according to his convenience and so also Madathipathi used to visit the plaintiff Madam at least once in a year. Madathipathi is the Administrator and the Trustee of the suit temple. Present Madathipathi and his predecessors were all administering the Madam and temple as private properties and poojas used to be performed by Madathipathi and his followers and the temple was aalso mainly constructed for the use of the Madathipathi and his disciples. Public have no right of entry but they are allowed by the authorities of the Madam to come and offer worship. Suit temple is a private temple and the defendant has no jurisdiction to interfere in the administration of the said temple. In a previous suit in O.S. No. 50 of 1930 filed before the Subordinate Judge, Vellore, it has been decided that suit temple is a private temple belonging to Madalayam. A document dated 2.8.1973 filed in the said suit also would show that the suit temple and Madam was constructed even in 1799 and it is recognised as a private temple even as early as 1873. Documents have been filed before the defendant to prove that the suit temple is a private temple belonging to Madathipathi and is not a public temple. In the Main entrance to the temple, there is only an arch and there is no Gopuram and there is no car for the temple and no Bramorchavam has been conducted in the temple. In Moolasthanam there is an idol of Madathipathi, who was the “founder of the Madam and the temple, and this also would show that it can never be treated as a public temple. The Inspector attached to the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Board submitted a report to the defendant stating
