Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 3252
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T. RAVINDRAN, J.
Sri. Nambillai Sabha Rep. by its President B. Thamarai Selvan – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department – Respondent
A.S. No. 45 of 2012, M.P. No. 1 of 2012
Decided On : 12-12-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : P. Ramanathan.
For the Respondent: M. Venkadesh Kumar.
Headnote:
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 - Section 70 - Purchased property and put up building - Construction in sabha - Aggrieved over judgment and decree passed file of Assistant Judge City Civil Court plaintiff has come forward with first appeal - For sake of convenience parties are referred to as per their rankings in trial court - Suit for declaration that plaintiff is not coming within purview of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act - Briefly stated according to plaintiff Situated Street is consisting of about members and office bearers are elected particularly within and among members – Held, Even as per decision relied upon by counsel reported it is found that decision regarding character of temple to be based on evidence adduced in each and every case and crucial factor for determining character of temple is whether there is dedication to public and right of public to offer worship at temple as matter of right - When issues involved in this matter has to be determined on facts and circumstances of each case and considering discussions made on materials projected in matter when it is seen that had been performed in plaintiffs premises with idols and pictures with all materials for performance of and priest is exclusively nominated for same and adding further when public participation in plaintiffs activities and are found wholly prevalent and public contributions had been received for carrying on activities of plaintiff and public participation are also recognised by printing their names and donations collected from them in souvenir published by plaintiff and put up in plaintiff are found to be constructed only with of public contribution it is seen that plaintiff satisfies in all aspects character of temple particularly when are found to be performed before idols and pictures in premises and public are allowed to gain access to premises for offering their worship as matter of right and in such view of matter authorities and court below are found to be justified in not acceding to relief sought for by plaintiff - Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT :
T. RAVINDRAN, J.
Prayer: First Appeal filed under Section 70(2) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, against the order and decreetal order dated 11.02.2011 passed by the V Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, in O.S. No. 2240 of 2006.
1. Aggrieved over the judgment and decree dated 11.02.2011 passed in O.S. No. 2240 of 2006 on the file of the V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, the plaintiff has come forward with the first appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial court.
3. Suit for declaration that the plaintiff Sri. Nambillai Sabha is not coming within the purview of the Tamilnau Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 22 of 1959.
4. Briefly stated, according to the plaintiff, the plaintiff Sabha, Situated at No. 31, Ulagappan Street, Chintadripet, Chennai 600 002, is consisting of about 80 members and the office bearers are elected particularly within and among the members of the Sabha. The plaintiff Sabha is not a religious institution as contemplated under Section 6(18) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act and also not a temple as defined under Section 6(20) of the abovesaid Act and the plaintiff Sabha was originally started in the year 1889 and registered in the year 1956 under the Societies' Registration Act. The members of the Sabha, in the year 1925, had purchased a property and put up a building on the said land and developed the sabha from time to time. 11 members are elected as office bearers to manage the affairs of the plaintiff Sabha from time to time and at present, the sabha is represented by its president T. Bashyam Chettiar. The plaintiff sabha had kept some colour calendar pictures with wooden frames hanging on the wall in a room within the Sabha premises. The sabha members used to carry on Athmartha worship before the hanging wooden framed pictures of the Gods and Goddesses. No idol is consecrated in the sabha premises. Only the pictures of Sri. Ranganatha Nambillai, Sri. Andal, Sri. Ramanujar and Manavalamamunigal are hanging on the wall in a room inside the sabha premises. No worship or aradana or archana is being performed for the pictures hanging on the wall. Therefore, the hanging pictures cannot be construed as Hindu Idol so as to attract the provisions of the abovesaid Act. The abovesaid Act is not applicable to the plaintiff sabha. There is no Garbaggraham inside the plaintiff Sabha premises. There is no kodimaram, there is no Nandhi or Balipeedam inside the sabha premises. There is no Gopuram or Prakaram in the sabha premises. There is no Hundial in the sabha premises. The abovesaid ingredients are necessary to constitute a temple as defined in the abovesaid Act. There is no dedication of any property to anyone of the pictures hanging on the wall inside the sabha premises. There is no public worship to the pictures hanging on the walls. No public can enter the sabha for the purpose of worship as a matter of right. Worship to the pictures are done only by the members of the sabha. The sabha is not kept open everyday to attract any public worship. No religious activities are carried on in the sabha premises. No festivals, special poojas, Uthsavams are carried on in the sabha premises from time to time. Various members of the sabha had been managing the affairs of the plaintiff sabha as set out in the plaint. HR&CE department, without any notice to the sabha, had appointed a fit person/Executive Officer for the administration of the plaintiff sabha. Hence, the plaintiff sabha preferred an application under Section 63(a) of the abovesaid Act to declare that the plaintiff is not falling under the purview of the abovesaid Act. The Joint Commissioner HR&CE has passed an order on 05.02.1997 dismissing the abovesaid application. The plaintiff preferred the appeal before the Commissioner HR&CE in A.P. No. 8 of 1997/D2. After a period of 8 years, the commissioner had
