The determination of a temple's status as public or private hinges on the right of public access and the evidence of dedication to public worship, not merely on the presence of public worship.

JUDGMENT :

S. SRIMATHY, J.

Prayer: This Appeal Suit filed under Section 70(2) of the HR and CE Act 22 of 1959, against the Judgment and Decree dated 26.10.2005 passed in O.S. No. 24 of 2001 on the file of the Sub Court, Aruppukottai.

1. The present First Appeal is preferred by the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department (hereinafter referred to as HR&CE Department) against the Judgment and Decree dated 26.10.2005 passed in O.S. No. 24 of 2001 on the file of the Sub Court, Aruppukottai. The appellants herein are the defendants in the suit and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs in the suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per the ranking in the suit.

2. The plaintiffs had filed the suit in O.S. No. 24 of 2001 to set aside the orders passed by the 1st defendant in A.P. No. 2 of 1984, dated 30.09.1985 and order passed by the 2nd defendant in O.A. No. 57 of 1976, dated 01.11.1978, wherein in the said orders it has been held that the suit temple is a religious institution as defined in Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, Tamil Nadu Act, 22/59 (hereinafter referred to as HR&CE Act) and it is not a private temple belonging to the plaintiffs. The suit was allowed in favour of the plaintiffs and aggrieved over the same the present First Appeal is preferred by the HR&CE Department.

3. The brief facts as stated by plaintiffs are that the plaintiffs are the pangalis to each other having the common ancestor. One Perali Chettiar had purchased the property an extent of 20 x 51 kambu equivalent to 60’ x 153’ vacant site through a registered sale deed dated 15.12.1868. The said Perali Chettiar died leaving behind his surviving only brother Soundappa Chettiar. That Soundappa Chettiar died leaving behind his only surviving daughter Soundeeswariammal, Soundappa Chettiar and Chinniah Chettiar as his legal heirs. The present plaintiffs are the sons of Soundappa Chettiar, and Chinnappa Chettiar respectively. The aforesaid Soundeeswariammal have not attained puberty and has led the life as a “sanyasin.” The plaintiff’s parents Soundappa Chettiar and Chinnaiah Chettiar have looked after the needs of Soundeeswariammal. Due to the aforesaid care, affection and love bestowed by the plaintiff’s parents upon that Soundeeswariammal she wanted to render all the helps which will enable the plaintiff’s parents and their descendants to attain the eternal benefits. The abovesaid Soundeeswariammal thought of constructing a temple within the property purchased by their ancestor Perali Chettiar, which is owned by his heirs namely Soundeeswariammal. Soundappa Chettiar and Chinniah Chettiar also had taken very great efforts and strain. And from and out of the joint effort of them they have constructed a temple in the said property. In that temple the presiding deity is Samundeeswari Amman and there are other sub shrines also. After the death of abovesaid Soundeeswariammal her body was interned in that temple premises itself and the samadhi of Soundeeswariammal also since her godly effect was so merciful to them. As stated above the Soundeeswariammal, the plaintiffs parents alone have constructed the temple from and out of their own money and the outsiders have nothing to do with it. It is an obvious fact that the temple is situated in the private land belonged to the plaintiff's family. All along the poojas were performed in the temple only by the plaintiff's family members and at present the 1st plaintiff is doing poojas for the past about 20 years. Previously his ancestors were rendering pujas in the temple. Likewise, the plaintiffs and their ancestors alone were maintaining and administering the temple all these years continuously and outsiders had not interferred in the administration of the temple. The HR&CE Department also has never interfered in the plaintiffs' administration of temple all these years. But due to wrong understanding of law the subordinates of defendants had mistakenly have sometimes collected the