Sithamparanather Mailvaganam V. Kumaraswamy Kurukkal Ramanatha Aiyar

1953 Present: Rose C.J., Nagalingam S.P.J. and K. D. de Silva J.

SITHAMPARANATHER MAILVAGANAM et al. Appellants,

and KUMARASWAMY KURUKKAL RAMANATHA
AIYAR et al., Respondents

S. C. 58-D. C. Jaffna, 395T
 

Hindu temple-No evidence of express dedication-Charitable trust-Inference of its . existence-Relevant factors-Trusts Ordinance (Cap. 72), s. 107.

In deciding, under section 107 of the Trusts Ordinance, whether or not a temple, even in the absence of an express dedication, should be deemed to be a charitable trust, such matters as the holding of public services at the temple, donations to the temple by members of the public throughout a long period of time and improvements effected to it by them are matters which can properly be taken into consideration.

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court, Jaffna. This case was referred to a Bench of three Judges owing to a difference of opinion between the two Judges before whom it had been previously listed.

S. J. V. Chelvanayakam, Q. C., with C. Vanniasingham and C. Shanmuganayagam, for the plaintiffs appellants.

E. B. Wikramanayake, Q. C., with H. W. Tambiah and S. Sharvananda, for the defendants respondents.

Cur. adv. vult.

[The following cases were cited at the argument:-Kumarasamy Kurukkal v. Karthigesa Kurukkal (1923) 26 N. L. R. 33, Pujari Lakshmana Goundan v. Subramana Ayyar A. I. R. 1924 P. C. 44, A. I. R. 1920 Madras 42, Narayanan Nambudripad v. Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments A. I. R. 1938 Mad. 209, Somasunderam v. Rangunather Mudaliyar (1930) 12 C. L. Rec. 78 at 81, Doraiswami Kurukkal v. Thambipillai (1949) 53 N. L. R. 323 at 328, Mandacheri Roman v. Thachangat Nair A. I. R. 1934 P. C. 230.]

October 12, 1953. ROSE C.J.-

The plaintiffs-appellants pray for a declaration that a Hindu temple known as the Innuvil Kandaswamy Kovil and its temporalities constituted a religious charitable trust. They also ask for certain ancillary reliefs under Section 102 (1) of the Trusts Ordinance (Cap. 72).

In the past there has been some contest between the parties as to whether the land on which the temple stands belonged to the successors in title of one Kulandayar Velayuthar, as alleged by the plaintiffs. This matter appears to have been determined, for all practical purposes, in favour of the defendants in D. C. Jaffna case No. 8,813 decided in 1914.

The matter to be decided in the present case is whether the temple in question is a charitable trust. The learned District Judge in a long and analytical judgment, while conceding that a number of improvements had been effected and donations given by members of the public, considered that these matters were insufficient to convince him that the temple was a charitable trust. In the course of his consideration of this matter, the learned Judge said :

" To my mind, this erecting of a temple by a Brahmin priest and dedicating it for religious worship by the Hindus of the neighbourhood is no more than like a barber erecting a saloon and equipping it in order that he may ply his trade by shaving the beards of the men in the neighbourhood. If in appreciation of the services of the barber and the comforts enjoyed in the saloon men add to the equipment and the building, one will not argue that thereby the saloon had been converted into a trust."

It seems to me, with all respect to the learned District Judge, that his analogy is unhelpful, particularly in view of the fact that according to the decided cases the question as to whether or not a particular temple may be deemed, in the absence of express dedication, to be a charitable trust must depend upon the circumstances of the particular matter and the inferences to be drawn from such factors as the holding of public services, general access to the public at all times, donations of land and monies to the temple by the public and improvements

Click Here to Read the rest of this document