Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 1010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
K. KALYANASUNDARAM, J.
Chennai Kumara Kottam Sree Siva Subramaniaswami Sevarthigal Sangam - Appellant
Versus
Arulmigu Kumara Kottam, Sri Siva Subramaniaswami Temple and Ors. - Respondents
S.A. No. 164 of 2007
Decided On : 28-01-2020
For the Appellant : R. Thiagarajan.
For the Respondents:G. Sugumaran and N. Manikandan, Government Advocate.
Headnote:
Societies Registration Act - Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department Act - Section 6 (19) – Claim of compensation - Possession and right of management - plaintiff in is the appellant herein. The said suit was filed for declaration declaring that the property viz., Chennai Swami built on the terrace of and the office premises of Temple and the kitchen in the Ground Floor belongs to the plaintiff and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the first defendant, his men and servants from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said - Plaintiff would claim that Temple situated at - Bose Road, Madras is a denominational temple established and owned by Community of Madras administration of the Temple was governed by a Scheme framed by the High Court in - Scheme was modified in City Civil Court, Chennai - Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner HR & CE Department, Madras framed fresh scheme in his proceedings – Held, It is true that the appellant has marked such as property tax receipts, water and sewage tax payment receipts, electricity card records and receipts for booking of to prove their administration and management - However, those documents would not establish title of the plaintiff - It is seen from the records that the trial Court on misreading of facts and law, granted decree in of appellant - In considered opinion of this Court plaintiff has not discharged the burden of proof and the appellate Court has rightly reversed the judgment of the trial Court - Insofar as framing of additional issues by the appellate Court, on perusal of the written statement and the grounds of appeal, it is evident that from the inception, the respondents have resisted the suit on the ground of maintainability, contending that there is a specific bar under Section of the Act and the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner are binding on parties - Since parties have understood the issues and gave evidence in support of their case Court find no merit in contention of learned counsel for appellant – Further decisions cited by the learned counsel for appellant are factually distinguishable and have no application to case on hand – Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT :
K. Kalyanasundaram, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court V, Chennai, passed in A.S. No. 485 of 2004, reversing the judgment and decree of the V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court made in O.S. No. 4091 of 1996.
2. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 4091 of 1996 is the appellant herein. The said suit was filed for declaration declaring that the property viz., Chennai Kumarakottam Sri Sivasubramania Swami Kalyana Mandapam built on the terrace of the Vakana Godown and the office premises of Arulmigu Kumara Kottam Sri Sivasubramania Swami Temple and the kitchen in the Ground Floor belongs to the plaintiff and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the first defendant, his men and servants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said Kalyana Mandapam.
3. The plaintiff would claim that Arulmigu Kumarakottam Sri Sivasubramania Swami Temple situated at No. 105, N.S.C. Bose Road, Madras is a denominational temple established and owned by the Vaniga Vysia Community of Madras. The administration of the Temple was governed by a Scheme framed by the High Court in C.S. No. 397 of 1919. The Scheme was modified in C.S. No. 9 of 1944 and by the City Civil Court, Chennai in O.P. Nos. 162 of 1954 and 248 of 1954. Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner, HR & CE (Admin) Department, Madras framed fresh scheme in his proceedings, dated 18.04.1966 in O.A. No. 69 of 1963.
4. The plaintiff has further stated that with an object of conducting and performing various Tiruppanis and Upanayams in the said Temple, and for other objects, a Society was formed in the name of "Chennai Kumarakottam Sree Sivasubramania Swami Sevarthigal Sangam" on 26.07.1968. In the meeting, a committee, consisting of 5 members, was formed to carry out the object. A decision was taken to built a Kalyana Mandapam over the office premises of the Temple and Vagana Kidangu. It is the case of the plaintiff that the members of the Sangam stipulated that the Kalyana Mandapam so put up would belong to the Sangam and not to the Temple, it was not intended to be a gift to the Temple and the possession and management of the Kalyana Mandapam would always be with the Sangam to which, the Trustees of the Temple and the Executive Officer have agreed. Pursuant to the said agreement, collections were made from its members and the members of the community, a Kalyana Mandapam was constructed. A few other devotees have also come forward to contribute their mite and the Sangam accepted such voluntary donations and the construction was completed in the year 1973 and was formerly opened on 11.07.1973.
5. It is further stated that the Sangam was registered as Society under the Societies Registration Act on 19.06.1974. Since then, the property became the property of the plaintiff's Society and the Society is the owner of the Kalyana Mandapam and is in possession and management of the same on its own right. The plaintiff is paying the property tax, since 1974-75 and maintaining proper accounts for income and expenditure in respect of the Kalyana Mandapam. While so, the Deputy Commissioner (HR & CE), Madras in M.P. No. 1 of 1978, initiated proceedings to hand over the Kalyana Mandapam to the Temple on the ground that the said Kalyana Mandapam was the specific endowment within the meaning of Section 6 (19) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department (in short "the Act"). A certificate was issued to hand over possession, by his proceedings, dated 27.04.1984. The order was challenged by the plaintiff in R.P. No. 40 of 1984 before the Commissioner, HR & CE (Admin), Madras and the same was dismissed on 31.12.1984. In pursuance of the same, a summon was issued by the VIIIth Metropolitan Magistrate, G.T. Chennai, in M.P. No. 436 of 1985, directing the petitioner to appear for enquiry.
6. The plaintiff further stated that in O.S. No. 7839 of 1984, a declaration of the right of the p
