Back
Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.A.K. SAMPATHKUMAR
Kuzhithurai Peruntheru Vellalar Samudayam Sreerooba Narayanapillayar Devasthanam, represented by Trustees: Kolappa Pillai & Others
Versus
The Commissioner, H.R. and C.E (Admn) Department & Another
S.A. No. 420 of 1995
Decided On : 11-09-2006
Denomination Temple - Religious Denomination - Article 26 of the Indian Constitution - [Section 49 of the Tamil Nadu Act 22/1959, Article 26 of the Indian Constitution] - The court discussed the character of the temple, the definition of denomination temple, and the appointment of trustees. The court found that the suit temple was not a denomination temple and dismissed the suit.
Fact of the Case:
The Sreerooba Narayanapillayar temple, managed by the Hindu Vellalar Community, was taken over by the first defendant and administered by appointing trustees. The plaintiffs claimed that the temple was a religious denomination temple and challenged the appointment of trustees.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit temple was not a denomination temple and dismissed the suit.
Issues: (a) Character of the temple as a denomination temple, (b) Appointment of trustees, (c) Suit notice under Section 80 C.P.C
Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed the evidence and concluded that the temple was not a denomination temple as claimed by the plaintiffs. The court also found that the appointment of trustees and the absence of a suit notice under Section 80 C.P.C were not in favor of the plaintiffs.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the second appeal, upholding the lower appellate court's finding that the suit temple was not a denomination temple and therefore the plaintiffs were not entitled to the suit claim.
1. This second appeal is filed against the reversal finding of the judgment dated 23.08.1994 in A.S. No. 59 of 1993 on the file of the Sub Court, Kuzhithurai in and by which the learned Sub Judge allowed the appeal reversing the judgment dated 20.04.1991 in O.S. No. 462 of 1985 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai, setting aside the decree and dismissed the suit.
2. For convenience, the parties are referred as arrayed in the suit.
The brief facts of the case are as follows:
3. Sreerooba Narayanapillayar temple is situated at Kuzhithurai Peruntheru, Kurumathur Taluk, Vilavancode Village. Amman Temple is situated north and south of this temple. This temple belongs to exclusively Hindu Vellalar Community residing at Peruntheru, Kuzhithurai. The said temple was founded and administered by this community as per the agreement of the year 1923. This temple is being managed and administered by the said community. Later on, the agreement was in oral and subsequent to 07.02.1957, it was reduced into writing. Therefore, the said temple is a religious denomination temple as it has a distinctive characteristics and qualities recognised by the said Vellalar community. The said community people have rest house and the peculiar customs in the day to day life. The properties of the temple were dedicated by this community people only. No other people have dedicated any property to the temple. The temple is being managed only by the persons appointed by the said community. If death is occurred in anyone of the family of the said community, the temple is being closed. The temple will be opened after the completion of the rites which are followed according to their custom. Similarly, if marriage or other auspicious function is celebrated, the family members used to donate to the temple. Apart from that, they performed three days Kodaivizha of the temple. During that festival, chief dancer of the said community performed ‘Komarathadi’ dance. During that time, they forget all their feelings an d anyone asked about their future life, the chief dancer replied for the same in respect of the happenings of good or bad in the future life. Apart from that, they performed Chithirai visu, Avani Sirappu and Aippasi visu, according to their customs.
4. During the year 1957, according to the desire of the said community, Kolappa Pillai, Chinnu Pillai and Parameswaran Pillai were elected as President, Treasurer and Secretary respectively. Thereafter, Mahadevan Pillai, P.M. Neelakanda Pillai, S. Muthiah Pillai, Kuttralam Pillai and K.M. Subbiah Pillai became trustees.
5. During the year 1971, since one of the trustees namely, K.M. Subbiah Pillai became the writer of a daily paper, the first defendant with bad intention took possession of the temple administration and administered the temple up to 1984 by appointing the trustees belonged to the said community. After the death of K.M. Subbiah Pillai in the year 1984, his wife and brothers became the trustees of the said temple appointed by the first defendant. The first defendant declared the said temple as a public temple and by administering the same by appointing the trustees. On 21.07.1985 according to the minutes of the first defendant, the defendants 2 to 4 were appointed as trustees of the temple whereas one trustee belongs to Pandara Community and another belongs to one Harijan Community. Such appointment is illegal and without jurisdiction. The first defendant has no jurisdiction to appoint the trustees as the temple is a denomination temple. Such appointment is against the article 26 of the Indian Constitution. Denomination temple is protected under Article 26 of the Indian Constitution. Such appointment is void-ab-initio. Hence, the suit.
6. Thewritten statement of the first defendant adopted by the fifth defendant reads as follows:
7. The contention of the plaintiff that the suit temple a denomination temple is not true. The suit property stands in the name
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
