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 community for a longer period does not confer denominational status.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 09.07.2004 passed in A.S.No.47 of 2001 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Padmanabhapuram and confirm the judgment and decree dated 03.06.1999 passed in O.S.No.213 of 1998 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel.)

The plaintiffs are the appellants.

2. The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.213 of 1998 before the Principal District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Eranial for declaration that the first plaintiff trust and temple is a religious denominational one belonging to the Nair Community of Thirunainarkurichy. The plaintiffs prayed for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the administration of the trust by the plaintiffs 2 to 4 or the trustees elected from time to time. The said suit was decreed by the trial Court. Defendants 2 and 3 filed A.S.No.47 of 2001 before the Subordinate Court, Padmanabhapuram. The learned Subordinate Judge was pleased to allow the appeal and dismissed the suit. As against the said judgment, the present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs.

3. The plaintiffs had contended that the plaint trust and the plaint properties are administered by the trustees namely plaintiffs 2 to 4 in the present suit. According to the plaintiffs, the trustees are periodically elected from and out of by the members of Nair community of Thirunainarkurichy. According to the plaintiffs, the beneficiaries of the plaint trust being exclusively the members of the Nair community of Thirunainarkurichy Village, the plaint trust is a denominational one and no other section of the Hindu public has any right in the plaint trust and they are not even worshippers of the plaint temple. According to the plaintiffs, defendants 2 and 3 have no locustandi to interfere in the administration of the plaint temple or its property.

4. The plaintiffs further contended that the trust being a denominational one, it is entitled to the benefit and protection as contemplated under Article 26 of Constitution of India. The plaintiffs further contended that defendants 2 and 3 have issued a notice on 03.05.1975 under Exhibit A1 appointing first defendant as a fit person of the temple. The above said notice is without any jurisdiction and it amounts to interference in the administration of the temple and possession of the temple property. Hence, the present suit.

5. Defendants 2 and 3 who are authorities under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, filed a written statement contending that the plaint temple is a place of public religious worship and it is worshiped by all sections of the Hindu communities from very ancient times. The defendants had further contended that the origin of the temple is not known and it is also not known when and by whom the plaint temple was founded and the deity was installed. The defendants had further contended that the temple is situated in a Government poromboke and all Hindu public are worshipping in the plaint temple as a matter of right. The defendants had further contended that the plaintiffs had originally filed O.S.No.49 of 1976 before the same Court for the same relief and the said suit was dismissed for default on 04.02.1977. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.410 of 1977 to restore the said suit and the said application was also dismissed on 29.01.1980. Hence, the present suit is not maintainable.

6. Based upon the said pleadings and evidence, the trial Court arrived at a finding that Exhibit B2 which is said to be a document executed among the members of Nair community and two brahmins will show that the persons from all communities participated in the functions and festivals and that Nair community did not have sole right to have administration of the temple. Based upon the said findings, the trial Court concluded that the suit temple is not a denominational one.

7. On appeal, the learned Appellate Judge