Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
Vijayamangalam Naidu Periya Vettukarap Pangaligal, Arulmigu Karuppanar, Muthayee, Kannimar Padavaikkari Kovil by Sundaram alias Meenatchi Sundara Managing Trustee & Others - Appellant
Versus
M. Murugesan & Others - Respondent
Second Appeal No. 691 of 2014
Decided On : 19-04-2022
Trust - Temple Administration - Indian Trusts Act, 1882, Section 6 - The settlement deed dated 25-8-1947 created a Trust in favor of the deities of the Temple. The document assigned specific duties to each branch and created hereditary rights to administer the Temple. The courts misdirected themselves in approaching the dispute as if the plaintiff had claimed for an exclusive right over the temple. The judgment and decree of both the Courts below are set aside, and the suit filed by the appellants is decreed as prayed for.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs sought a declaration to declare that they are the Managing Trustees of the suit temple under the settlement deed dated 25-8-1947 and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the administration of the Temple. The defendants claimed that the Temple and its properties belong to all the 121 pangalis and no one can claim an exclusive right on the administration of the Temple.
Finding of the Court:
The courts misdirected themselves in approaching the dispute as if the plaintiff had claimed for an exclusive right over the temple. The settlement deed created a Trust in favor of the deities of the Temple and assigned specific duties to each branch, creating hereditary rights to administer the Temple. The judgment and decree of both the Courts below are set aside, and the suit filed by the appellants is decreed as prayed for.
Issues: The courts misdirected themselves in approaching the dispute as if the plaintiff had claimed for an exclusive right over the temple. The lower Appellate Court failed to frame the points for determination as mandated under Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC. The Settlement Deed Ex.A2 created a right in the nature of trust and assigned specific duties to each branch. The Courts below were right in holding that the Settlement Deed Ex.A2 does not create hereditary right to the respective branches while assigning them with specific duties. The findings of both the Courts below can be termed as perverse due to improper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The settlement deed dated 25-8-1947 created a Trust in favor of the deities of the Temple and assigned specific duties to each branch, creating hereditary rights to administer the Temple. The courts misdirected themselves in approaching the dispute as if the plaintiff had claimed for an exclusive right over the temple.
Final Decision: The judgment and decree of both the Courts below are set aside, and the suit filed by the appellants is decreed as prayed for. Each branch of the pangali families will have the right and duty as prescribed under exhibit A2 document. No one will have the exclusive right over the suit Temple and all the 121 pangali families will have a right to the suit Temple.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree of the Subordinate Judge, Namakkal in A.S.54/2010 dated 23.08.2012, confirming the judgment and decree of the District Munsiff, Rasipuram, in O.S.No.9 of 2008 dated 11.08.2010.)
1. The plaintiffs are the appellants in this Second Appeal.
2. The plaintiffs filed the suit seeking for the relief of declaration to declare that they are the Managing Trustees, who are in control of the administration of the suit temple under the settlement deed dated 25-8-1947 and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the administration of the Temple and restraining the defendants from occupying the suit Temple and the building attached to it. The plaintiffs also claimed for the relief of mandatory injunction to direct the defendants to hand over the keys of the suit Temple and building attached to it.
3. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit Temple belongs to the Naicker Pangaligal. Originally, it belonged to one Sundaram @ Mennakshi Sundaram who was the Managing Trustee and the plaintiffs 2 to 5 are the family members of the Managing Trust. According to the plaintiffs, the properties were gifted by a settlement deed dated 25-8-1947, marked as exhibit A2. This settlement deed was executed by the grandfather of the plaintiffs, late Kuppusamy Naicker.
4. The further case of the plaintiffs is that the settlement deed provided 17 conditions and separate tasks were assigned to each branch. The first condition was that Kupusamy Naicker will be the first Managing Trustee and the President of the Temple and his line of successors will only be incharge of the management and administration of the Temple. This was properly followed till the demise of the father of the plaintiff in the year 1988. The plaintiffs claimed that after the demise of their father, they continued as the Managing Trustee and President of the Temple as per the settlement deed. There were various duties assigned to the branch which was given the administration and it was strictly followed by them.
5. The further case of the plaintiffs is that the Temple function must be conducted three times in a year for the deities and for that purpose, donations must be collected from the 121 pangalis. It is stated that the other branches and pangalis were allotted separate tasks like performing poojas and rituals. The settlement deed also provided for the consequence if any of the pangalis does not give the donation.
6. The grievance of the plaintiffs is that, the defendants started interfering with the administration of the Temple and they went to the extent of creating a parallel Trust and also registered the document. They also occupied the building belonging to the Temple and they used it as the Trust Office. They also issued notices to the pangalis, stating that they are going to collect the donations and run the Temple.
7. It is under these circumstances, the suit came to be filed for the relief stated supra.
8. The defendants filed a written statement. They took a stand that the claim made by the plaintiffs is unsustainable and that the Temple and its properties belongs to all the 121 pangalis and no one can claim an exclusive right on the administration of the Temple. They took a further stand that the plaintiffs started claiming absolute right over the suit Temple and this resulted in all the other pangalis coming together and creating a Trust for the welfare of the deities of the Temple. While doing so, it was ensured that all the 121 pangalis will have a right to administer and maintain the Temple and no one can claim any exclusive right over the suit Temple. The defendants claimed that the registered trust deed had already come into force and the suit Temple is being administered in a proper manner and even the plaintiffs can participate in the administration and maintenance of the suit Temple along with the other pangalis. Under such ci
The settlement deed dated 25-8-1947 created a Trust in favor of the deities of the Temple and assigned specific duties to each branch, creating hereditary rights to administer the Temple.
A party claiming hereditary trusteeship over temple properties must establish valid claims against previously executed deeds and demonstrate appropriate legal standing to pursue a suit related to suc....
To declare a temple as denominational, it must be established/founded by a denominational community and be in the management and administration of that community. Mere management/administration by a ....
The court affirmed the hereditary trusteeship of defendants, ruling that plaintiffs failed to prove mismanagement or entitlement to non-hereditary trusteeship under the Hindu Religious Charitable End....
A deity cannot be represented in a lawsuit by worshipers without proper legal standing; only identified office bearers of a society can act on its behalf. The temple in question is a private temple b....
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
