Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 707
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. Kannammal, J.
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable, Endowments Administration Department – Appellant
Versus
U. Jagadeesan and Others – Respondents
A.S. No. 224 of 2009
Decided On : 14-07-2022
For the Appellant :M/S. S. Yashwanth, Advocate.
For the Respondent:M/S. R. Kannan, M/S. T. Ravikumar, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the recognition of hereditary trusteeship under the HR & CE Act, supported by oral and documentary evidence, and the dismissal of the appeal suit against the trial Court's decision.
Headnote:
HR & CE Act - Hereditary Trusteeship - Section 6(11) - O.A.No.16 of 1990 - SMR No.3/2000 D2 - Section 69(2) - Section 64(1) - Section 45(1) - Section 47(2) - Palamalai Ranganathar Temple - [Hereditary Trusteeship, HR & CE Act, O.A.No.16 of 1990, SMR No.3/2000 D2, Section 69(2), Section 64(1), Section 45(1), Section 47(2)] - The plaintiff and his ancestors were found to be hereditary trustees of the temple through oral and documentary evidence. The order of the first defendant setting aside the order of the second defendant was found to be incorrect. The judgment and decree of the trial Court confirming the plaintiff as hereditary trustee and granting permanent injunction was upheld on appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff and his ancestors were found to be hereditary trustees of the Palamalai Ranganathar Temple. The trial court set aside the order of the first defendant and granted permanent injunction to restrain interference with the plaintiff's management and administration of the temple.
Finding of the Court:
The plaintiff and his ancestors were found to be hereditary trustees of the temple through oral and documentary evidence. The order of the first defendant setting aside the order of the second defendant was found to be incorrect. The judgment and decree of the trial Court confirming the plaintiff as hereditary trustee and granting permanent injunction was upheld on appeal.
Issues: The main issues were whether the plaintiff had proved through oral and documentary evidence that he and his ancestors were hereditary trustees of the temple, whether the order of the first appellant setting aside the order of the second appellant was correct, and whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court warranted interference from the appellate court.
Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiff and his ancestors were able to prove their hereditary trusteeship through oral and documentary evidence, and the order of the first appellant was found to be incorrect. The judgment and decree of the trial Court was upheld as it did not warrant interference from the appellate court.
Final Decision: The appeal suit was dismissed, and the judgment and decree of the trial Court confirming the plaintiff as hereditary trustee and granting permanent injunction was upheld. No costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Appeal suit filed under Section 70(2) of the HR & CE Act 22 of 1959 against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.568 of 2006 dated 14.02.2008 on the file of II Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.)
1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.568 of 2006 dated 14.02.2008 on the file of II Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are referred to in the Original Suit.
3. The case of the plaintiff/first respondent herein is as follows:-
Arulmighu Palamalai Ranganathar Temple is situated in an extent of 11.85 acres in Palamalai Hills, Naickenpalayam Village, Coimbatore North Taluk. Father of the plaintiff late. Unganna Gowder obtained permission to occupy the said 1.85 acres of forest land for the temple from the District Forest Officer, Central Division, vide order Ref.No.5413/66-D, dated 25.11.1969 as Managing Trustee of the temple. Originally, the said Palamalai Ranganathar Temple was founded by one Kalidass, ancestor of the plaintiff. The said Kalidoss found a Suyambulingam in the said Palamalai Hills and was performing Neyvedhyam to the said Suyambulingam. He put up a Parnasalai to the said Suyambulingam. After his death, his successor Unganna Gowder, belonged to his Vamsam, then his son Nanjunda Gowder were performing poojas. Subsequently, when the said Nanjunda Gowder planned to construct Mandapams for the temple, God appeared before him in his dream and as per the instructions of the God, he found sand and stones near the temple premises in the month of Vaikasi of Tamil Keelaga Varusham and put up various constructions and mandapams of the temple along with his only son Karae Gowder and was conducting functions of the temple performing poojas to the Suyambulingam diety and Vigrahams. After the death of the said Nanjunda Gowder, his son Karae Gowder was managing the temple. After the death of Karae Gowder, his son Rangai Gowder, grand father of the plaintiff was managing the temple as its trustee. After the death of Rangai Gowder, his son Unganna Gowder, father of the plaintiff was managing the temple as its Managing Trustee till his death in the year 1972. His father Unganna Gowder was paying the lease amount to the forest land, wherein the temple situates. During his life time, he obtained Electricity Service Connection, put up Pillaiyar temple and other temples, dug wells, constructed water tanks, installed motor pump sets to the well, converted 4 acres of land into Mango and Coconut Thope from out of his pocket, made several constructions and improvements to the temple by spending amount from out of his own pocket and from out of the funds collected from the public. After his death, his son U.Rajendran, elder brother of plaintiff, was managing the temple as Managing Trustee since 1973. In the year 1979, the plaintiff became the Managing Trustee of the temple and was managing the temple looking after all the affairs of the temple. In 1979, plaintiff was appointed as a Managing Trustee of the temple by the HR & CE Department. Chitra Pournami car festival, Puratasi Saturday Festival Special Poojas are being performed in grand manner. Regular Poojas are being performed three times every day in all days by the poojari appointed by the plaintiff. Jewels of the temple and other properties of the temple have been under the care and custody of the plaintiff and his ancestors. Electricity charges and lease amount due to the forest department is being paid by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is submitting the accounts of the temple to the audit of the HR & CE Department every year. Contribution amount to the temple are also being paid by the plaintiff to the HR & CE Department. Ever since the deity of the temple was found and the temple was constructed by the plaintiff's ancestors, the plaintiff and his ancestors were trustees of the temple hereditarily. The office of the trusteeship of the temple has been ve
