Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 1740
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN
RAMASAMY (DIED) – Appellant
Versus
ARULMIGHU PADAYACHI MARIAMMAN KOIL – Respondent
A worshipper can sue on behalf of a deity or temple, establishing the collective rights of a religious community over denominational properties.
Headnote:
Injunction - Religious Rights - Tamil Nadu HR & CE Act - Section 1, Section 2 - The court focused on the legal recognition of religious institutions, establishing that the plaintiff, as a representative of a community, had the right to maintain the suit owing to prior judgments affirming the temple's standing as a denominational institution.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a temple trustee, sought injunctions against defendants who obstructed access to a pathway and well used for temple rituals, claiming that the temple was a religious denominational institution under community control.
Issues: Whether the suit is maintainable and whether the reversal of the trial court's findings regarding the plaintiff's standing and defendants' rights is justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The temple was recognized as a public temple with rights belonging to the community; hence, the plaintiff's suit was maintainable, emphasizing the communal nature of the religious institution.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal is dismissed, confirming the appellate court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court, for the sake of convenience.
2. The defeated defendants are the appellants herein. The respondent/ plaintiff Arulmighu Padayatchi Mariamman Koil, Pudupalayam, Gobichettipalayam represented by its Managing Trustee and Administrator Mr.Subramaniam has instituted a suit (in short hereinafter referred to as Temple Trustee) in O.S.No.83 of 2011 before the District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam for an injunction restraining the defendants/appellants from interfering with the usage of the pathway and also to bring the pooja sacred wooden pol (used for amman temple during the festival time) to carryout the pooja and to dip the same in the common well of the plaintiff temple and also for a mandatory injunction to remove the new stone erected by the defendants in the pathway except the place already declared as pavadi (area where the soaked dying textile fibre are dried).
3. Defendants filed written statement. Original defendant Ramasamy died and his son and Pasupathi was brought on records as his legal heir. In the written statement, it is inter alia contended that the plaintiff has no capacity to file a suit as a representative, on behalf of a particular community, namely Vanniyakula Shatriyar community and the temple is under the control of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board and as proclaimed, Subramaniam, Plaintiff is never Managing Trustee and Administrator of the temple and the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The road mentioned therein is not a common passage road and the well is exclusively meant for pavadi belonging to a community namely Sengunthanar community meant for drying weaving works by the Senguthanar for more number of years and relied upon the judgment and decree in O.S.No.11 of 2023 dated 29.10.2010 marked as Exs.B18 and B19. Ex.B17 is the Commissioner's report filed in the said suit in O.S.No.11 of 2003 referred to by the defendants.
4. On the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues -
- (i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction ?
- (ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction ?
- (iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any other relief ?
5. On the side of the plaintiff, the Temple Trustee examined himself as PW1 and one Viswanathan was examined as PW2. Exs.A1 to A19 were marked. On the side of the defendants, the first defendant Ramasamy (now deceased) examined himself as RW1 and Exs.B1 to B22 were marked.
6. Based upon oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled for the permanent injunction and the mandatory injunction as well and accordingly dismissed the suit.
7. Aggrieved against the said order of dismissal, the defeated plaintiff has filed A.S.No.7 of 2017 before Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam. On re-
- appreciation of the facts, the Lower Appellate Court has formulated necessary points for consideration, namely on the same lines as that of the Trial Court and come to the conclusion that the suit filed by the plaintiff is maintainable., In view of the decision in the earlier suit in O.S.No.138 of 1980 dated 17.12.1987, it has held that “suit well” is a “public well” and the “temple” is a “denominational institution” under the Tamil Nadu HR & CE Act with the Board of Trustees and also based upon Exs.B14 to B19, come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief and accordingly decreed the suit by allowing the appeal and granted the relief. Hence, the defeated defendants has preferred the present appeal.
8. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law were framed. (i) Whether the Suit filed by the Plaintiff in his capacity as President/Administrator of the Trust viz.,Arulmighu Padayachi Mariamman Koil on behalf of the Vanniyar community people, without seeking permission to file a representative suit under Order 1 Rule 8 is maintainable? (ii) W
