Madras High Court
Sri Nambillai Sabha vs The Commissioner on 12 December, 2019
Author: T.Ravindran
Bench: T.Ravindran
A.S.No.45 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 14.11.2019
PRONOUNCED ON : 12.12.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN
A.S.No.45 of 2012
and
M.P.No.1 of 2012
Sri Nambillai Sabha
Represented by its President,
B.Thamarai Selvan
Son of Tiruvengadam
No.31, Ulagappan Street
Chindadripet, Chennai 600 002 ...Appellant
(B. Thamarai Selvan name amended vide order of
court dated 23.10.2019 made in CMP No.22687/18
in A.S.No.45 of 2012)
Vs.
1. The Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department
Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam
Chennai 600 034
2. The Joint Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department
Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam
Chennai 600 034 ...Respondents
Prayer: First Appeal filed under Section 70(2) of the Tamilnadu
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, against the
order and decreetal order dated 11.02.2011 passed by the V
Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, in O.S.No.2240 of 2006.
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/28
A.S.No.45 of 2012
For Appellant : Mr. P. Ramanathan
For Respondents : Mr. M.Venkadesh Kumar,
Government Advocate (CS) for R1 & R2.
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved over the judgment and decree dated 11.02.2011 passed in O.S.No.2240 of 2006 on the file of the V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, the plaintiff has come forward with the first appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial court.
3. Suit for declaration that the plaintiff Sri Nambillai sabha is not coming within the purview of the Tamilnau Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 22 of 1959.
4. Briefly stated, according to the plaintiff, the plaintiff Sabha, situated at No.31, Ulagappan street, Chintadripet, Chennai 600 002, is consisting of about 80 members and the office bearers are elected particularly within and among the members of the Sabha. The plaintiff Sabha is not a religious institution as contemplated under Section 6 (18) of the Tamilnadu Hindu Religious and http://www.judis.nic.in 2/28 A.S.No.45 of 2012 Charitable Endowments Act and also not a temple as defined under Section 6(20) of the abovesaid Act and the plaintiff Sabha was originally started in the year 1889 and registered in the year 1956 under the Societies' Registration Act. The members of the Sabha, in the year 1925, had purchased a property and put up a building on the said land and developed the sabha from time to time. 11 members are elected as office bearers to manage the affairs of the plaintiff Sabha from time to time and at present, the sabha is represented by its president T. Bashyam Chettiar. The plaintiff sabha had kept some colour calendar pictures with wooden frames hanging on the wall in a room within the Sabha premises. The sabha members used to carry on Athmartha worship before the hanging wooden framed pictures of the Gods and Goddesses. No idol is consecrated in the sabha premises. Only the pictures of Sri Ranganatha Nambillai, Sri Andal, Sri Ramanujar and Manavalamamunigal are hanging on the wall in a room inside the sabha premises. No worship or aradana or archana is being performed for the pictures hanging on the wall. Therefore, the hanging pictures cannot be construed as Hindu Idol so as to attract the provisions of the abovesaid Act. The abovesaid Act is not applicable to the plaintiff sabha. There is no Garbaggraham inside the plaintiff Sabha premises. There is no kodimaram, there is no http://www.judis.nic.in 3/28 A.S.No.45 of 2012 Nandhi or Balipeedam inside the sabha premises. There is no Gopuram or Prakaram in the sabha premises. There is no Hundial in the sabha premises. The abovesaid ingredients are necessary to constitute a temple as defined in the abovesaid Act. There is no dedication of any property to anyone of the pictures hanging on the wall inside the sabha premises. There is no public worship to the pictures hanging on the walls. No public can enter the sabha for the purpose of worship as a matter of right. Worship to the pictures are done only by the members of the sabha. The sabha is not kept open everyday to attract any public worship. No religious activities are carried on in the sabha premises. No festivals, special poojas, Uthsavams are carried on in the sabha premises from time to time. Various members of the sabha had been managing the affairs of the plaintiff sabha as set out in the plaint. HR&CE department, without any notice to the sabha, had appointed a fit person / Executive Officer for the administration of the plaintiff sabha. Hence, the plaintiff sabha preferred an application under Section 63(a) of the abovesaid Act to declare that the plaintiff is not falling under the purview of the abovesaid Act. The Joint Commissioner HR&CE has passed an order on 05.02.1997 dismissing the abovesaid application. The plaintiff preferred the appeal before the Commissioner HR&CE in A.P. No.8 of 1997/D2. After a period of 8 http://www.judis.nic.in 4/28 A.S.No.45 of 2012 years, the commissioner had passed the final order on 30.01.2006 dismissing the appeal preferred by the plaintiff sabha and hence, the plaintiff has been constrained to prefer the statutory suit in the court challenging the orders of the Commissioner HR&CE and according to the plaintiff, the Joint Commissioner and the Commissioner had erred in holding that a normal worship to the pictures hanging on the wall would amount to worship of the idol and therefore, the sabha in question will come under the purview of the abovesaid Act and further it is contended that they have failed to understand the scope of the definition of Section 6(18) and 6(20) of the abovesaid Act. The plaintiff sabha is purely secular in character and the Joint Commissioner and the Commissioner failed to appreciate the evidential value of the materials projected by the plaintiff in the right perspective and therefore, according to the plaintiff, the suit has been necessitated for seeking the appropriate relief.
5. The defendants resisted the plaintiff's suit contending that the plaintiff sabha is not known as Nambillai sabha by the public, but, it is popularly known as Sathyanarayana sabha, which is the original nomenclature of the sabha . The sabha contains "Sanctum Sanctorum" known as "Sathyanarayana Mandapam" and is http://www.judis.nic.in 5/28 A.S.No.45 of 2012 established for the benefit of vaishnavite worshipers of Hindu Community and they are worshiping as a matter of right. The presence of the idol is not a prerequisite for being a place of worship within the meaning of the definition contemplated under the Act. Even Bajana madams, where pictures of Hindu Gods and Godesses are hanging, are held to be the religious temple even if there are no idols. Ample evidence had been collected to show that the plaintiff sabha had been collecting contributions from the general public who are non members and non vaishnavites, which proved the participation of the hindus in general. Therefore, the plaintiff sabha is not confined only to the members of the sabha. The public have donated, particularly, for the construction of mandapam, etc., in the sabha and automatically they get the right of worship in the sabha. The souvenir released by the plaintiff sabha in the year 1971 itself is a strong evidence to prove that the sabha was established during 1829 for the religious worship only and by way of the same, they had been openly inviting the general public to donate, particularly, to construct Karpagraham, Thiruvaimozhi mandapam to perform Thirunakshatram. The plaintiff sabha cannot be claimed as a private institution on the pretext of management and administration for their own benefits and it is not necessary for the religious institutions to look like a regular temple http://www.judis.nic.in 6/28 A.S.No.45 of 2012 and the public are allowed to have an access to the plaintiff sabha for performing various festivals, monthly and annual Thirunakshatram of Alwars and Saints and the application preferred by the plaintiff before the authorities had been gone into depth and dismissed after perusing the materials placed on record on both sides and the plaintiff Sabha is a public religious institution and come under the purview of the Tamilnadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act and therefore, the suit laid by the plaintiff is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
6. On the abovesaid pleas put forth by the respective parties, the following issues were framed by the trial court for consideration.
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for?
2. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to?
7. In support of the plaintiff's case P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On the side of the defendants D.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. http://www.judis.nic.in 7/28 A.S.No.45 of 2012
8. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties and the submissions made, the trial court was pleased to dismiss the plaintiff's suit without costs. Impugning the same, the first appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff.
9. The following points arise for determination in the first appeal.
1. Whether the plaintiff sabha is not coming within the purview of Tamilnadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, as put forth by the plaintiff?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek the relief of declaration as prayed for?
3. To what relief the plaintiff/appellant is entitled to?
4. To what relief the defendants are entitled to?
Point Nos. 1 and 2
10. From the pleas set out by the respective parties in the http://www.judis.nic.in 8/28 A.S.No.45 of 2012 matter and the materials available on record, it is found that the plaintiff has preferred an application under Section 63(a) of the Tamilnadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, hereinafter referred to as Act, seeking the declaration that the plaintiff Sabha is not a religious institution coming under the purview of the abovesaid Act before the Joint Commissioner, HR&CE.
11. It is found that in the enquiry conducted by the Joint Commissioner, to sustain the plaintiff's case, P.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. Further on the side of the Department C.W.1 was examined and Ex.C1 was marked. On an appreciation of the materials placed on record and the submissions made, the Joint Commissioner has concluded that the plaintiff sabha fulfilled the requirements of Section 6(20) of the Act and therefore, the plaintiff sabha is a temple as defined under the Act and resultantly, dismissed the application preferred by the plaintiff. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff before the Commissioner HR&CE in A.P. No.8/97D2 ended in dismissal. Following the same, the plaintiff has preferred the suit under Section 70(1) of HR&CE Act, 1959.
http://www.judis.nic.in 9/28 A.S.No.45 of 2012
12. Section 6(18) of the Tamilnadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, defines the Religious Institution as extracted below:
(18) "religious institution" means a math, temple or specific endowment and includes,-
(i) a samadhi or brindhavan; or
(ii) any other institution established or maintained for a religious purpose.
Explanation - For the purpose of this clause-
(1) "samadhi" means a place where the mortal remains of a guru, sadhu or saint is interned and used as a place of public religious worship;
(2) "brindhavan" means a place established or maintained in memory of a guru, sadhu or saint and used as a place of public religious worship, but does not include samadhi;
13. Section 6(20) of the Tamilnadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, defines the temple as extracted http://www.judis.nic.in 10/28 A.S.No.45 of 2012 below:
(20) "temple" means a place by whatever designation known used as a place of public religious worship, and dedicated to, or for the benefit of, or used as of right by, the Hindu community or any section thereof, as a place of public religious worship.
Explanation: - Where a temple situated outside the State has properties situated within the state, control shall be exercised over the temple in accordance with the provisions of this Act, in so far as the properties of the temple situated within the state are concerned;
14. Therefore, the point that has to be determined in this appeal is whether the plaintiff sabha falls within the definition of the religious institution and temple as defined under the HR&CE Act and not entitled to seek the relief of declaration that it is not the religious institution coming under the purview of the Act.
15. Considering the definition of the temple as defined under http://www.judis.nic.in 11/28 A.S.No.45 of 2012 the Tamilnadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, it is found that the following conditions are essential for determining whether a particular place falls within the definition of the temple, namely ,
1. It must be used as a place of public worship.
2. Dedicated to Hindu community or any section thereof as a place of public religious worship and
3. Used as of right by the Hindu Community.
16. From the materials placed on record, it is found that the plaintiff sabha was established to help and educate the poor and orphan children of vaishnavites, to establish Vaishnava library school and to perform yearly and monthly Thirunakshatram of Alwars and Acharias. Even as per the case of the plaintiff, it is found that the pictures of Sri Ranganatha Nambillai, Sri Andal, Sri Ramanujar and Manavalamamunigal are hanging on the wall in a room inside the sabha premises. Not only that the plaintiff also averred that the sabha members used to carry on Athmartha worship before the hanging wooden framed pictures of the abovesaid Gods and Goddesses.
http://www.judis.nic.in 12/28 A.S.No.45 of 2012
17. From the materials placed on record before the Joint Commissioner, it is found that the plaintiff has admitted before the official of the HR&CE Department that the worship had been carried on to the pictures right from the inception of the sabha and it has also been admitted that weekly and monthly Alwar Natchatram, 10 days Karthikai month Utsavam, Sri Rama Navami and Krishna Jayanthi poojas are being performed in a grand manner. However, it has been stated that the same had been done only by the members of the sabha. Considering the report of the official of the department marked as Ex.C1 before the Joint Commissioner, when it is noted that at the time of her inspection Sri Sathyanarayana idol was available in the premises and in addition to that small idols of Andal and Krishna were also available and furthermore, the pictures of Sri Nambillai, Nammalvar, Ramanujar, Sri Andal, Sri Ranganathar, Ramar and Anjaneya were available and hanging on the wall and it is further noted that pooja articles were placed before Sri Sathyanarayana idol and two lamps were lighted in front of the abovesaid idol and it is also seen that the official on questioning the priest available at the time of inspection, she was apprised by the priest that he was working there on monthly salary basis and further admitted that the general public and even the members not belonging to vaishnavite sect are participating in the http://www.judis.nic.in 13/28 A.S.No.45 of 2012 poojas and therefore, when it is further noted that, on verification by the official, the plaintiff sabha is popularly known as Sathyanarayan Sabha and not as Nambillai Sabha and accordingly when during the course of inspection Sri Sathyanarayana idol was found to be consecrated in the sabha premises and poojas have also been performed even by appointing a priest and when it is further noted that the general public and also the members not belonging to vaishnavism had been participating in the poojas, as rightly held by the Joint Commissioner as well as the Commissioner and the trial court, it is seen that the general public had been gathering in the sabha premises for performing the poojas of the abovesaid idols and the pictures hanging on the walls. However, thereafter, the plaintiff sabha, on gaining alertness, is found to have removed the idol of Sathyanarayana from the premises and the same was not available during the next inspection of the official of the HR&CE department. On the other hand, during the second inspection, it is found that the place of public worship, which was noted earlier, was changed as commercial business place and the abovesaid factors had been taken into consideration by the Joint Commissioner for deciding the issues involved in the matter.
18. In the light of the abovesaid factors, when at one point of http://www.judis.nic.in 14/28 A.S.No.45 of 2012 time as noted by the HR&CE officials, when the idols had been kept and worshiped in the sabha premises and also poojas were performed by the public in large belonging to all sects and poojas were also performed to the pictures hanging on the walls, in such view of the matter, as rightly held and determined by the authorites as well as the trial court, it is not necessary that the presence of Kodimaram, Nandhi, Balipeedam, Praharam, Gopuram and Garbaggraham should be available for constituting a place as a Religious Institution or a temple as defined under the Act. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiff's counsel that in the absence of praharam, kodimaram, balipeedam, Nandhi, Hundial, etc., the plaintiff sabha cannot be characterized and determined as a Religious institution, as such, cannot be countenanced when the other features constituting the definition of Religious Institution and temple, as defined under the Act, had been satisfied as above pointed out.
19. It is mainly argued by the plaintiff's counsel that the plaintiff sabha had been carried on for the purpose for which it was established only by the members of the sabha and no outsiders were allowed to participate in the same. By way of the same, it is put forth by the plaintiff's counsel that no public contribution has http://www.judis.nic.in 15/28 A.S.No.45 of 2012 been collected from the public for the performance of the activities of the sabha and therefore, the plaintiff's sabha would not fall within the purview of the HR&CE Act. However, the abovesaid case of the plaintiff is belied by the souvenir published by the plaintiff sabha in the year 1970. That the souvenir had been published by the plaintiff sabha in the year 1970 has not been controverted by the plaintiff before the Joint Commissioner. In fact, the Joint Commissioner had extracted the various endeavours/requests/appeals made by the plaintiff to the general public under the souvenir in his order and on a perusal of the same, it is seen that the appeal had been made to the public by the erstwhile secretaries of the plaintiff sabha to contribute to the plaintiff sabha for the performance of the various activities, particularly, for the construction and adornation of the building in the sabha premises and for performing the poojas on the religious occasions. Not stopping there, it is also found that in the souvenir, the names of the donors and the amount paid by them had also been printed and published. Therefore, the souvenir projected in the matter and the publication of the souvenir not having been controverted by the plaintiff sabha would go to disclose without any ambiguity that donations had been collected from the general public by the plaintiff sabha for the purpose of putting up construction in http://www.judis.nic.in 16/28 A.S.No.45 of 2012 the sabha premises and renovation of the same as well as for performing the poojas and as a boost to augment the donations from the general public, it is also seen that the plaintiff sabha had endeavoured to publish the names of the donors and the amount paid by them in the souvenir. In the light of the abovesaid position, the case of the plaintiff that no public is being allowed to participate in the activities of the sabha completely falls to the ground and on the other hand, it is found that the public participation is very much available and accordingly when the public contribution is found to be obtained for the development of the sabha activities, i.e., for the construction of mandapam, etc., as rightly concluded by the authorities and the court below, the public would have gained access to the sabha premises as a matter of right and accordingly it is found that at the time of the inspection of the HR&CE official, the public were performing the poojas before the idols kept in the premises as well as the pictures hanging on the wall and as above noted, even a priest had been nominated to perform the poojas. To say that there is no contribution from the public for carrying on the activities of the plaintiff sabha and the sabha activities are conducted exclusively by the members themselves, as such, cannot be believed and rightly discountenanced by the authorities and the court below.
http://www.judis.nic.in 17/28 A.S.No.45 of 2012
20. Furthermore, on a reading of the memorandum and rules of the plaintiff sabha marked as Ex.A2, particularly, the rules contemplated under 11, 36 and 42 , when it is seen that people are entitled for enrolling as a member of the sabha belonging to vaishnavite sect and when it is further noted that monthly and yearly Thirunakshathrams are being performed and when the donors are permitted to participate in the abovesaid functions and when as above noted, a priest had been nominated for performing the abovesaid poojas and activities and accordingly when at the time of the inspection as abovenoted, idols were kept in the premises and the pictures of the Gods and Goddesses were hanging on the wall and the poojas had been celebrated with pooja articles such as hand bells, kuthuvilakku, Theertha pathiram, Udrani and a plate containing pooja items, all would consequentially lead to the conclusion that poojas are being celebrated in the plaintiff's premises and the general public had been participating in the same and it is seen that special privileges are conferred on the donors in the performance of the poojas. The facts and the materials being above, therefore, to say that the plaintiff's activities are carried on without any participation of the public, as such, cannot be believed and rightly rejected by the authorities and the court below. http://www.judis.nic.in 18/28 A.S.No.45 of 2012
21. Not stopping there, when considering the various resolutions passed by the plaintiff sabha, as morefully detailed in the order of the Deputy Commissioner, it is found that various poojas such as Thirukarthigai Utsavam, Sri Andal Thirukalyanam, Alwar Thirunakshathram are being continuously celebrated through ubayatharars along with the sabha fund and as rightly determined by the authorities concerned, when public donations are received for the purpose of the abovesaid utsavams as well as the construction of the mandapam as evident from the souvenir published by the sabha and when particularly a priest has been engaged to perform the abovesaid poojas coupled with the fact that the idols were found kept inside the premises at the time of the inspection of the officials of the HR&CE department, all would prove without any doubt that the plaintiff sabha is only a religious institution and falls within the definition of the temple as defined under Sections 6(18) and 6(20) of the Tamilnadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act and therefore, when there is no contra material placed on the part of the plaintiff challenging the abovesaid materials projected in the matter, in such view of the matter, the authorities and the court below are found to be justified in holding that the plaintiff sabha fulfills the requirements of the definition of the Religious Institution and http://www.judis.nic.in 19/28 A.S.No.45 of 2012 Temple as defined under the Tamilnadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act.
22. As abovenoted, the main argument of the plaintiff's counsel is that in the absence of Garbaggraham, Kodimaram, Praharam, Hundial, etc., the plaintiff sabha cannot be characterized as falling under the purview of the Tamilnadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act and on that basis, the plaintiff sabha should be declared as a non religious institution. However, as rightly held by the authorities and the court below, the abovesaid features are not necessarily required for constituting a place as a temple. When it is seen that as per the definition of the temple, it means a place by whatever designation known and used as a place of public religious worship and dedicated to the Hindu community or any section thereof as a place of public religious worship and when the abovesaid materials projected in the matter and as discussed above, when it is seen that the plaintiff sabha had been collecting donations from the public for performing the various poojas and conducting worship dedicated to a particular sect Hindu community and in such view of the matter, the plaintiff sabha premises satisfies the place of public religious worship as such, the authorities and the court below are justified in rejecting the case projected by the http://www.judis.nic.in 20/28 A.S.No.45 of 2012 plaintiff that it would not fall within the definition of the temple as defined under Section 6(20) of the Act.
23. In addition to that, the contention has been put forth by the defendants that the plaintiff's society is not functioning as on date and not in existence and in this connection Tamilnadu Gazatte dated 16.07.1997 has been pressed into service, which has been marked as Ex.B1. On a perusal of Ex.B1, it is seen that the plaintiff sabha has been declared to be dissolved and a defunct society. The letter received from the Assistant Registrar, Chennai with reference to the same has been marked as Ex.B2. However, it is seen that the plaintiff has chosen to examine the official of the Chit Fund Society and Registration Department as P.W.2 and P.W.2 has stated that the plaintiff's society is still functioning and Exs.B1 and B2 had not come into force. No doubt, P.W.2 has not been cross examined by the defendants. However, as determined by the trial court, when from the materials projected by way of Exs.B1 and B2, the plaintiff's society has been struck off from the registration roll by the competent authority and the same is also reiterated in Ex.B2 letter, when there is no contra material placed on the part of the plaintiff to say that the abovesaid official Act had not come into force and not placed any acceptable and reliable material other than http://www.judis.nic.in 21/28 A.S.No.45 of 2012 the oral assertion of P.W.2 and even though P.W.2 might not have been cross examined by the defendants as such, still when there are no acceptable and reliable materials projected on the part of the plaintiff before the court below to evidence that it is still continuing and the subsequent minutes book projected by the plaintiff having not been exhibited in the matter as such, no reliance could be attached to the same for holding that despite the Gazatte notification marked as Ex.B1, the plaintiff society is lawfully functioning as per law. Therefore, as rightly contended by the Government Advocate,Civil side, when there is no contra material projected on the part of the plaintiff that Ex.B1 in particular has not come into force or modified or revised as per law, in such view of the matter, the plaintiff society not been in existence as on date and on that score also, it is seen that the plaintiff is not entitled to seek and obtain the relief prayed for.
24. The plaintiff's counsel, in support of his contentions placed reliance upon the decisions reported in
1. 2003(1) CTC 65 (The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board, Chennai vs. T.S.Palanichamy and others)
2. 2017 (4) CTC 8 (The Dy. Commissioner, Hindu http://www.judis.nic.in 22/28 A.S.No.45 of 2012 Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department and ors vs. Kannan)
3. 2019 (1) MWN (Civil) 529 (The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department, Chennai and others vs. Srikanth and another).
4. 2017 (1) CTC 212 (Sri Ayyappa Seva Samajam vs. he Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department, Chennai).
5. 1975 (88) LW 649 (Thanumalayaperumal Mudaliar and others vs. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department, Madras, and ors)
6. (1966) 2 MLJ 98 (S.C.) (T.D. Gopalan vs. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department, Madras)
7. 2011 4 L.W. 865 (Parasamaya Kolerinatha Madam vs. P. Natesa Achari & Ors)
8. 2006 (5) CTC 645 (SriKrishnavilas Bajanai http://www.judis.nic.in 23/28 A.S.No.45 of 2012 Madam vs. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department, Madras, and others)
9. 1998 2 L.W. 819 (The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department, Madras vs. Sri Andarvillai Mutjaramman Temple) Even as per the decision relied upon by the plaintiff's counsel reported in 2003(1) CTC 65, it is found that the decision regarding the character of a temple to be based on the evidence adduced in each and every case and the crucial factor for determining the character of a temple is whether there is dedication to public and right of public to offer worship at temple as a matter of right. Therefore, when the issues involved in this matter has to be determined on the facts and circumstances of each case and considering the discussions made on the materials projected in the matter, when it is seen that the poojas had been performed in the plaintiff's premises with idols and pictures with all the materials for the performance of pooja and a priest is exclusively nominated for the same and adding further when public participation in the http://www.judis.nic.in 24/28 A.S.No.45 of 2012 plaintiff's activities and poojas are found wholly prevalent and public contributions had been received for carrying on the activities of the plaintiff sabha and the public participation are also recognised by printing their names and the donations collected from them in the souvenir published by the plaintiff sabha and the mandapam put up in the plaintiff sabha are found to be constructed only with the aid of the public contribution, accordingly, it is seen that the plaintiff sabha satisfies, in all aspects, the character of a temple, particularly, when poojas are found to be performed before the idols and the pictures in the premises and the public are allowed to gain access to the premises for offering their worship as a matter of right and in such view of the matter, the authorities and the court below are found to be justified in not acceding to the relief sought for by the plaintiff. The various decisions relied upon by the plaintiff's counsel had formulated the principles of law to be taken into consideration for deciding whether the place falls within the definition of the temple or not, accordingly it is found that on the facts and circumstances of the case in the abovesaid decisions, the issues had been determined. Similarly on the basis of the available materials, in the present case, when it is evident that the plaintiff sabha satisfies the ingredients of Religious Institution and Temple as defined under the Tamilnadu Hindu Religious and Charitable http://www.judis.nic.in 25/28 A.S.No.45 of 2012 Endowments Act, the plaintiff is found to be not entitled to seek the relief prayed for.
25. In the light of the abovesaid discussions, I hold that the plaintiff sabha falls under the purview of the Tamilnadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, as determined by the authorities and the trial court. I therefore hold that the plaintiff is not entitled to seek the relief of declaration prayed for. Accordingly, the point numbers 1 and 2 are answered.
Point Nos. 3 and 4
26. For the reasons aforestated, the judgment and decree dated 11.02.2011 passed in O.S.No.2240 of 2006 on the file of the V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, are confirmed and resultantly, the first appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any is closed.
12.12.2019 Index : Yes/No http://www.judis.nic.in 26/28 A.S.No.45 of 2012 Internet:Yes/No bga Copy to
1. V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai,
2. The Section officer, V.R. Section, High Court, Madras. http://www.judis.nic.in 27/28 A.S.No.45 of 2012 T.RAVINDRAN,J.
bga Pre-delivery Judgment in A.S.No.45 of 2012 12.12.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in 28/28