Dispute regarding temple being private or public to be decided by Civil Court.

Having failed in both the courts below plaintiffs 1, 2 and 4 to 7, representing "the Hindu general public in the City of Rajapalayam" have filed this second appeal. Their suit O.S.No.93 of 1978 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Srivilliputtur is for declaration that the suit institution is a "public religious institution belonging to the Hindu public in general as against the exclusive claim by the defendants on behalf of Rajus of Singaraja Kottai, Rajapalayam with a right of entry for all the Hindu citizens into it for worship in pujas according to the usage by Panda-rams of the "temple" (a temple called Arulmigu Mariamman Koil, Pudupalayam.) and for consequential injunction.

2. The pleas of the plaintiffs are briefly as follows: The origin of the said institution is unknown. However, the deity was granted by Karnatic Rajas in T.D.No182 of Sambandapuram village (now called as Pudupalayam). The grant was devadayam grant. In the year 1865, the T.D. was confirmed. After such confirmation, the institution has been under the management of Poojaries, otherwise called as Pandarams, the descendants of the registered holders of the grant. All communities participated in the conduct of the festivals in the suit institution. However, the citizens have got the right of entry into the temple for worship and it is a place of public religious worship for devotees of all castes and sections of Hindu Public. The defendants filed a suit in O.S.No.100 of 1975 on the file of Sub Court Ramnad at Madurai for a declaration that the suit institution was a denominational one with a right of management for them. The authorities under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act alone were defendants in the said suit. But, the members of the public other than the Rajus were not parties to the suit, nor was there a publication under 0.1, Rule 8, C.P.C., binding the Hindu citizens of Rajapalayam. In the suit, declaration of title to the denomination of Rajus over the suit temple was not granted, but the right of management in the temple was granted to them, while decreeing the suit. The decree is not binding on other communities. The 2nd defendant got himself appointed as trustee by the Assistant Commissioner, Ramanathapuram at Madurai since 1969 or so. Formerly, the 2nd defendant’s father was trustee of the temple on appointment by area committee.

3. The defence of the defendants, who represent Rajus, residing at Singarajakottai, Rajapalayam is as follows: The temple had been constructed by the said Rajus and consecrated for exclusive worship by and for the spiritual benefit of the said Rajus, who formed a religious denomination and it has been in their exclusive administration and management beyond living memory for over a century. Members of the other communities were allowed to worship with their permission. The said denomination had been electing among themselves trustees for the administration of the temple. Such representatives were "invariably" recognised by the Endowment Department. The present suit is barred by the principles aires judicata in view of the decision in O.S.No.100 of 1975. The defendants in O.S.No.100 of 1975 claimed the public right which alone is claimed in the present suit. The civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit in view of Sec.108 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act.

4. Mainly there were two issues decided by the trial court. One is, "Whether the suit temple is a public or denominational temple?" The other is, "whether the suit is barred by res judicata by reason of the judgment in O.S.No.100 of 1975 on the file of Sub Court, Ramanathapuram?" The trial court, after , a lengthy discussion in paragraphs 7 to 39 of its judgment, gave the finding that the suit temple was not a public temple, but it was a denominational temple belonging to Singarajakottai Rajus. On the other main issue, the trial court held that the suit was barred by res judicata, by re