The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of a 'religious institution' under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act and the significance of public contributions and dedication of properties in determining the nature of the institution.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 31.07.1997 passed in O.S.No.317 of 1992, by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai.)

1. The appellants are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.317 of 1992, on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai.

2. The original suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for declaration that the suit institution is not a "religious institution" by reversing and setting aside the impugned order passed by the defendant in A.P.No.60/87 dated 01.10.1991. The said suit was dismissed. Challenging the said dismissal judgment and decree, dated 31.07.1997, the plaintiffs have filed the present appeal suit as appellants.

3. The averments in the plaint, in brief reads as follows:

The suit temple is situated at Thallakulam, Madurai Town. One Solaimalai Poosari @ Karuppanasamy was the common ancestor of the plaintiffs and their pangalis. The said Solaimalai Poosari @ Karuppanasamy was a saint possessing super powers than the ordinary human beings. On getting the blessings of the said Solaimalai Poosari @ Karuppanasamy, his family members and relatives had the atmost faith and belief upon his powers. About 150 years ago, the said Solaimalai Poosari @ Karuppanasamy passed away from this earth. The family members and relatives of saint Solaimalai Poosari @ Karuppanasamy had thought it fit to interm in their private land and to erect a tomb upon the remains of the said saint. On worshipping of the tomb of Solaimalai Poosari @ Karuppanasamy, his heirs were blessed with all sorts of welfare. Evensince then, his heirs namely, the plaintiffs and their ancestors are continuing the worship of the tomb of Solaimalai Poosari @ Karuppanasamy.

4. In the course of time, the plaintiffs' ancestors carved out the image of the deceased saint Solaimalai Poosari @ Karuppanasamy and worshipped the same. Later around the stone carving of that Solaimalai Poosari @ Karuppanasamy, the plaintiffs' ancestors have erected the sanctum sanctorium and mandapam etc., the very appearance of the idol Karuppanasamy will reflect the physical anatomy of the deceased Solaimalai Poosari @ Karuppanasamy.

5. All along the plaintiffs and their ancestors alone were worshipping as their family deity. The public has no right to come and worship in the temple as of right. As a matter of fact, the plaintiffs and their ancestors were performing Gurupoojas every year in that temple to their common ancestor Solaimalai Poosari @ Karuppanasamy. The public had no right of participating in the Gurupoojas or in the related ceremonies and festivals conducted in the temple. The plaintiffs are maintaining and administering the temple among themselves. In such administration of the temple, so far neither the public nor the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department had interfered at any point of time.

6. During the year 1981, the World Tamil Conference was celebrated in Tamukkam ground situated near the suit temple. Then only the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department Officials had a look over the temple. On that eve, the Government machineries had planned to demolish the suit temple with a view to widen the road. With a very great struggle and protest, the plaintiffs were able to maintain the status quo preserving the temple and the tomb situated therein. Thereafter, the plaintiffs were advised to get a declaration that the suit temple is a private family temple by moving before the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Madurai. Accordingly, the plaintiffs have filed O.A. No.10/82 before the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Madurai, seeking declaration that the suit temple is not a religious institution to the effect that it is their private temple. The Deputy Commissioner has not even granted sufficient time to the plaintiffs to examine some more witnesses on their side to sub