2011 Supreme(Mad) 3031

High Court of Judicature at Madras
M. VENUGOPAL
J. Belli Gowder & Others
Versus
N.M. Pamba Gowder & Others
A.S. No. 1268 of 2003
Decided On :Decided on: 29-06-2011

A public temple is one which is open to the public and in which the public has a right to worship. A private temple is one which is not open to the public and in which the public has no right to worship.

Headnote:

JUDGMENT : 1. Theappellants/defendants 2 to 5 have filed the present Appeal before this Court as against the judgment and decree dated 23.10.2003 made in O.S. No. 255 of 1997 passed by the Learned Subordinate Judge, Udhaga- mandalam.

Fact of the Case:

The respondents 1 to 4/plaintiffs are the permanent residents of Nanjanadu Village in Ooty Taluk, belonging to Badaga Community, a pre-dominant native community in Nilgiris District, in Nanjanadu Village, there is a Bajanai Temple known as ‘Sri Nanjundeswarar Bajanai Temple’ founded and constructed by the Badaga Community people. Originally, a Bajanai Madam was functioning in the then house of the third respondent/third plaintiff, nearly about 100 years before. The Bajanai Madam later was shifted to the temple Sri Nanjundeswarar which was constructed during the year 1987 and Kumbabisekam was performed in the same year. The construction of Sri Nanjundeswarar Bajanai Temple is the continuation of the Bajanai Madam which was functioning for the past one century. The Badaga Community people are known for their deep involvement and strict adherence of religious, rituals and ceremonies. There is a custom prevailing in the Badaga Community in regard to the performance of poojas in the temple. The original natives alone are entitled to perform the poojas. To decide the natives, the entire Badaga Community of Nilgiris have divided into four ‘Seemais’ or ‘areas’. They are (a) Merku Nadu Seemai, (b) Kundha Seemai, (c) Thodha Nadu Seemai and (d) Parangi Nadu Seemai”. The Nanjanadu Badaga Community people come under Thodha Nadu Seemai. The originally domiciled people are called natives. Though the Badaga Community people migrate from one Seemai to another, they will have their nativity only with regard to the Seemai which they originally belonged. In that manner, the respondents 1 to 4/plaintiffs belonged to Thodha Nadu Seemai and the defendants 2 to 5 (the appellants) belonged to Merku Nadu Seemai. The Thodha Nadu Seemai comprises of various Sects. One such sect is Thuda Gui Sect. The original natives of Nanjanadu Village belong to the said Sect. In the broad division of four Seemais, the originally domiciled Badaga Community people consider themselves as ‘Dhayadhis’ or ‘Brothers’. The migrated people to that Seemai are ‘in laws’ or ‘Maman’ ‘Machans’. Each Seemais have their own Kulam Deivam for the worship of the people. All the people of that Seemai irrespective o their origin are entitled to worship in the Temple. Only the original natives are the people belonging to that Seemai alone are entitled to perform Poojas in the temple. In this background, the respondents 1 to 4/plaintiffs along with one B. Raman (since deceased) has filed a petition before the 6th respondent/6th defendant (the office of the Deputy Commissioner, HR & CE) as per Section 63(e) of the HR & CE Act for a decision that in the suit Temple, the natives of Nanja Nadu Village viz., Thoda Nadu’ -group of Badaga Community people alone, are entitled to perform Poojas in the Temple. The petition has been numbered as O.A. 37 of 1992 before the 6th respondent/6th defendant and defendants 1 to 5 have been added as respondents and contested the matter. The 6th defendant/6th respondent passed orders on 21.8.1995 holding that in the suit Temple only the Thuda Gui Sect of Nanjanadu village alone are entitled to perform Poojas.

Finding of the Court:

The suit temple has been constructed during the year 1987 and further that Kumbabisekam has been performed on 11.11.1987 from and out of the money collected from various sources like donations received from the village public etc., clearly shows that the suit temple has been thrown open to the public. Moreover, from plaintiffs and defendants side one T.K. Murthy and Sreenivasan have been selected to perform poojas for which Exhibit B-2 Resolution dated 13.11.1987 has been passed. Since the suit Nanjundeswarar Temple has been constructed from and out of the money collected from all members of Badaga Community irrespective of Sects and also from the common public through donations etc., in the suit Sri Nanjundeswarar Bajanai Temple Kumbabisekam has been performed by A and B party jointly (after the construction of the suit temple during the year 1987) and for both the groups, two poojaries have performed poojas. Therefore, both the groups cannot claim any customary exclusive right either in the temple management or in pooja performance.

Issues: 1. Whether there is a cause of action for the respondents 1 to 4/plaintiffs to file the suit? 2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties? 3. Whether the order dated 12.2.1997 in A.P. No. 50 of 1995 passed by the 7th respondent/7th defendant is liable to be set aside? 4. Whether the respondents 1 to 4/plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of declaration that by usage and custom traditionally in the performance of pooja in Sri Nanjundeswarar Bajanai Temple at Nanjanadu Village, Ooty Taluk of Nilgiris District, Thuda Gui Sect of Badaga Community alone are performing? 5. Whether the respondents 1 to 4/plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent injunction?

Ratio Decidendi: The suit temple (earlier being a Nanjundeswarar Bajanai Madam) has been built in the year 1987 from and out of the money collected from all members of Badaga Community and from the common public of the village for the exclusive benefit of Badaga Community. Therefore, the suit temple is a public temple and further, the plaintiffs cannot exclusively claim the relief of declaration as prayed for by them in the Plaint.

Final Decision: The respondents 1 to 4/plaintiffs are not entitled to get the Declaratory relief and the Permanent Injunction relief sought for by them in the Plaint against the appellants/defendants 2 to 5, since the respondents 1 to 4/ plaintiffs and the appellants/defendants 2 to 5 do have the right to perform poojas as ‘A’ party (majority group) daily in the morning between 6.30 a.m. and 7.30 a.m. and in the evening between 6. p.m. and 6.30 p.m. and the ‘B’ party (minority group) between 6.00 a.m. and 6.30 a.m. in the morning and evening between 6.30 p.m. and 7.30 p.m. as per arrangements made by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 25.5.1988 till both the groups arrive at a resolution of the dispute in a complete and in a comprehensive fashion.