Madras High Court
Archakar Sthanika Sangam Of Archakas vs V.Rajamanickam Desikar on 16 August, 2022
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
A.S(MD)No.2 of 2012
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 16.08.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
A.S(MD)No.2 of 2012
and
C.M.P(MD)No.11821 of 2016
Archakar Sthanika Sangam of Archakas,
Doing Service in Hill Temple,
Palani,
Through its President. ... Appellant
vs.
1. V.Rajamanickam Desikar
2. K.D.Thangavel
(Respondents 1 and 2 for themselves and as the office bearers of
Arulmigu Dhandayuthapaniswamy Hill Temple Sthanika Miras 64
Pandarangal Sangam, Palani)
3. Arulmigu Dhandayuthapaniswamy Devasthanam,
Palani,
Through its Executive Officer,
Adivaram, Palani.
4. The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department,
Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai-34.
Page 1 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S(MD)No.2 of 2012
5. A.K.K.Dhandapani
S/o. Kandasamy Pandaram,
President of Arulmigu Dhandayuthapaniswamy
Hill Temple Sthanika Miras 64 Pandarangal Sangam,
Palani, South Car Street,
Palani Town. ... Respondents
Appeal Suit filed under Section 70(2) of the Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments Act, against the judgment and decree dated
11.08.2010 made in O.S.No.113 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate
Judge, Palani.
For Appellants : Mr.S.Anand Chandrasekar for
Mr.R.Nandakumar
For R2 : Mr.G.Gomathi Sankar
For R3 : Mr.K.Sekar
For R4 : Mr.M.Lingadurai
Special Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
The appellant as a plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.113 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Palani, against the respondents/defendants, for setting aside the order of the 4th respondent passed in A.P.No.10/90 dated 19.11.1990 and for a declaration that the appellant alone are entitled to Sramadhakshinai and also Thirumanjanam fee fixed by the 3rd respondent with costs of the suit. After trial, the trial Page 2 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S(MD)No.2 of 2012 Court, by judgment and decree dated 11.08.2010, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff, as appellant, has filed this appeal.
2. Brief averments stated in the plaint are as follows:-
The suit relates to apportionment of the amount collected by the Devasthanam/4th defendant towards Sramadhakshinai and Thirumanjanam for Abishekam to Lord Dhandayuthapani, Palani, between the Gurukkal represented by the plaintiff and the Pandarams represented by the defendants 1 to 3. On 17.04.1970, the 4th defendant Devasthanam passed orders regarding apportionment of a sum of Rs.9.40/- collected for Abhishekam by the Temple, of which, a sum of Rs.6.40/- was retained with the Devasthanam, Re.1 was to be paid to the Murai Gurukkal as Swarnapushpam, 0.25 paise to Adhyayana Bhattar for Japa Dakshanai, 0.75 paise to the Gurukkals or Miras Pandarams who bring Thirumanjanam water and Re.1/- to the persons performing Abhishekam as Sramadhakshinai. By a subsequent order dated 04.06.1970, the 4th defendant clarified that Sramadhakshinai fee should be paid to the Gurukkals who perform the Abishekam, as remuneration Page 3 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S(MD)No.2 of 2012 for their services. Against the said order, a suit in O.S.No.397 of 1970 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palani, was filed by defendants 1 to 3 herein, for a declaration that they are entitled to Sramadhakshinai fee of Re.1/- along with Thirumanjanam fee of 0.75 paise for every Abhishekam and for other reliefs. The suit was, however, dismissed, against which, an appeal filed by the defendants 1 to 3 in A.S.424 of 1975, before the District Munsif Court, Madurai, was also dismissed. A further appeal in S.A.92932/76 was preferred by the Pandarams and the High Court held that the suit was not maintainable in the Civil Court and gave liberty to defendants 1 to 3, to pursue the remedy before the appropriate forum. Thus, the defendants 1 to 3 filed O.A.No.116/79 before the Deputy Commissioner, H.R & C.E. (Administration) Department, Madurai, under section 63(c) of the Act and conceded that the orders dated 17.04.1970 and 04.06.1970 of the Devasthanam were nullity in the absence of the approval by the Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, HR & CE, and prayed for setting aside those orders and for a direction to pay the money in deposit to them for distribution amongst them and for a direction to leave the performance of Abishekam with them or in the alternative, directing the apportionment of the fee Page 4 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S(MD)No.2 of 2012 fixed for performance of Abhishekam according to usage of Re.1/- for Abhisheka Gurukkal as Swarna Pushpam 0.25 paise for Adyayana Bhattar for seeing Punyavachanam Japam during Abhisekam, 0.75 paise for Thirumanjanam water exclusively for the Pandarams and Re.1/-
towards Sramadhakshinai exclusively for the Pandarams. The plaintiff opposed the application, contending inter alia that the Deputy Commissioner is not vested with the jurisdiction to approve or sit in judgment over the orders of the Executive Officer dated 17.04.1970 and 06.04.1970, and therefore, the petition filed by defendants 1 to 3 is not maintainable and it is opposed to several judicial pronouncements and decisions pertaining to the exclusive right of "thattam Eduthu Puzhanguthal" in the hands of 64 Pandarams and that the service claimed to be done by the Pandarams is not a service to the deity, but is only a personal service done to the worshippers and the claim of the Pandarams has no factual or legal basis, as it is opposed to the findings in the prior proceedings. The Deputy Commissioner, by his order dated 11.12.86, has allowed the petition in part. According to the plaintiff, the order of the Deputy Commissioner did not disclose any valid reasons for making the said apportionment and it is not based on the evidence on Page 5 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S(MD)No.2 of 2012 record. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff preferred appeal in A.P. 10/90 before the 5th defendant, who by order dated 29.11.1990, had confirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner and dismissed the appeal on 29.11.1990. Hence, the suit.
3. Brief averments in the written statement are as follow:-
The defendants 1 to 3 filed a written statement, stating that though the suit was filed under Order 7 Rule 1 CPC, the court fee was paid under Section 104 of the HR & CE Act, as such, the court fee is inadequate. The averment that the Devasthanam passed orders for apportionment of fees collected for abishegams and Thirumanjanam, is denied. The Trust Board simply passed a resolution to collect Rs.9.40 for each abishegams. According to the defendants 1 to 3, there was no such resolution. Only after the liberty granted by the High Court in S.A.No.942 of 1976, the defendants 1 to 3 filed O.A.No.116 of 1979 before the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Madurai, under Section 63(e) of the H.R. & C.E. Act. After elaborate enquiry and perusal of various documents of all the parties, the Deputy Commissioner passed orders as to shares in the Sramadhakshinai and Thirumanjanam in the amount of Rs.9.40 collected Page 6 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S(MD)No.2 of 2012 by the Devasthanam for each abishegam. The right of the pandarams for emoluments attached to Thirumanjanam service is already established. The office of Sangam is already recognized and their right to Thattam Eduthu Puzhanguthal has been determined, established and recognized. Thus, questioning the right of the pandarams does not arise at this stage. The Commissioner, H.R & C.E., Madras, confirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner as to the rights of these defendants for Sramadakshnai and Thirumanjanam. A slight modification in Thirumanjanam service has been made by him, but the order is clear that the plaintiff has no right to claim Thirumanjanam service. The attempt to distinguish Dakshanai and Kattanam is perverted. The allegation that the Pandarams were never paid Sramadakshanai nor claimed it till 1970, is ex-facie illegal and against the facts. On the allegation that Gurukkal had the right to Sramadakshanai as per the customs and judicial decisions is incorrect. Further, it cannot be said that payment of Sramadakshanai is a gift only to Gurukkal to perform abishegams. As a matter of fact, they are paid Sornapushpam for their service. They cannot claim a share in the Sramadakshanai collected by the Devasthanam, which must go to the pandarams only. The Deputy Page 7 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S(MD)No.2 of 2012 Commissioner took a lenient view that Gurukkals also could have a share with Pandarams. The Gurukkals are meant for service in the sanctum sanctorum. They cannot opt for or indulge themselves for Thirumanjanam service and if they do so, Hindu sentiments will disqualify them from being Gurukkals to render service in the sanctum sanctorum. The exclusive right of pandarams for Thirumanjanam service has already been determined and established. The Gurukkals have no right to challenge the order of the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E, which was passed after proper enquiry and after giving reasonable opportunity. Thus, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
3.1. The 4th defendant/Devasthanam also filed a written statement, reiterating the above averments. In addition thereto, they contended that the plaintiffs have deliberately overlooked the fact that the Pandarams also participate in the preparation for Abhishekam and would be entitled to apportionment of Sramadhakshinai. As the name indicates that any person who is entitled to undergo the labour (Sirama) of the combined act of preparing and performing the Abeshekam, would be entitled to the amount, the Gurukkal cannot claim to be entitled to the Page 8 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S(MD)No.2 of 2012 entire amount. The suit itself is misconceived and is not maintainable without statutory notice to the defendants 4 & 5 and the the plaintiff have to avail the remedy only under the provisions of the H.R & C.E. Act.
Thus, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
3.2. The 5th defendant/Commissioner, HR & CE., also filed a written statement stating that the temple authorities introduced the ticket system in the year 1970 for abishekam and other items after the judicial proceedings in the years 1937 and 1946. Before that, the Pandarams were getting remuneration from the worshippers. After introducing the ticket system, the Pandarams were getting their remuneration through the temple by means of shares in Archanai and Abishegam tickets. The Thirumanjanam right for the Pandarams has been established in O.S.No. 303/1960. The service of Pandarams in the temple is in existence for over centuries. Hence, the Pandarams are entitled to their share in the Ticket System. The Deputy Commissioner as well as the 5th defendant had passed orders after perusing the records produced before them. Further, the system of Swaranapushpam was introduced by the temple authorities from the year 1970. It was a new payment to the Gurukkal Page 9 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S(MD)No.2 of 2012 doing Archaka after Abishegam, Alangaram etc. It is to be adorned on the deity as per agama and other conventions during Archanai performed by the Gurukkal at the Karpagraham. Hence, the temple authority had introduced the Swarnapushpam share to the Gurukkal. Both Pandarams and Gurukkals do labour in preparing abisheka items out of abisheka articles while the Gurukkals actually perform abishegam on the deity. Hence, they are entitled to Sramathatchanai in equal share. The supply of Thirumanjanam water and taking the worshippers to the temple with abishegam articles duly prepared and entering the temple into Arthamandapam otherwise called "Thattu Eduthu Pulanguthal" are the exclusive rights of Pandrams. The right of Thattu Eduthu Pulanguthal was recognized by the High Court in S.A.No.672/1946. To prevent undue extraction from the worshippers, the temple authorities had introduced the ticket system for abishegam and other items in the year 1970. After introducing the ticket system, the remuneration received from the worshippers became the emoluments of the temple, but it is only a gratuitous payments for the personal service rendered to the worshippers by the Pandarams. There is an agreement between the Pandarams and Gurukkals for taking of charges and income for their Page 10 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S(MD)No.2 of 2012 services rendered in the temple. In the year 1960, the temple authority had decided to give equal share to Pandarams and Gurukkals. Thus, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
4. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:-
(i) Whether the members of the plaintiff sangam are alone entitled to fee fixed by the 4th defendant towards Sramadakshanai and Thirumanjanam?
(ii) Whether the order passed by the 5th defendant is liable to be set aside?
(iii) Whether proper court fee is paid by the plaintiff?
(iv) To what other relief, the plaintiff is entitled to?
5. In order to substantiate the case, on the side of the plaintiff, one witness was examined as PW1 and 10 documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A10. On the side of the defendants, three witnesses were examined and 35 documents were marked as Exs.B1 to B35. Page 11 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S(MD)No.2 of 2012
6. The trial Court, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, by judgment and decree dated 11.08.2010, dismissed the suit. Challenging the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff has filed this appeal.
7. Though the appellant filed a suit in O.S.No.113 of 2010, for setting aside the order of the 4th respondent passed in A.P.No.10/90 dated 19.11.1990 and for a declaration that the appellant alone are entitled to Sramadhakshinai and also Thirumanjanam fee fixed by the 3 rd respondent, the learned counsel for the appellant restricted his arguments only to apportionment of amount at 0.75 paise towards Thirumanjanam fee. As per the order dated 17.04.1970 passed by the 3rd respondent/Devasthanam, a sum of Rs.9.40/- is collected for Abhishekam by the Devasthanam, of which, Rs.6.40/- will be retained with the Devasthanam, Re.1 has to be paid to the Murai Gurukkal as Swarnapushpam, 0.25 paise has to be paid to Adhyayana Bhattar for Japa Dakshanai, 0.75 paise to the Gurukkals or Miras Pandarams who bring Thirumanjanam water and Re.1/- to the persons performing Abhishekam as Sramadhakshinai. There is no dispute regarding the Page 12 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S(MD)No.2 of 2012 other apportionments except the Thirumanjanam fee. According to the learned counsel, the entire fee fixed for Thirumanjanam is ordered to be paid to the Pandarams alone, but Gurukkals also bringing the Thirumanjanam water for Abhishekam. When the respondents 3 and 4 ordered Sramadhakshinai to the 64 Pandarams and 32 Gurukkals in equal share, the Thirumanjanam fee also should be paid to both the Pandarams and Gurukkals either in equal share or in proportionate share. However, without assigning any reason, the 4th respondent confirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner, HR & CE, and the trial Court also failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence and erroneously dismissed the suit. Thus, he would pray for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 2 and 5 would submit that both the Pandarams and Gurukkals were initially the servants of the temple and there was no remuneration and they collected money from the devotees directly and subsequently in 1970, ticket system was introduced and Devasthanam is collecting Rs.9.40/- for every Abhishekam, of which, Rs.6.40/- will be retained with the Page 13 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S(MD)No.2 of 2012 Devasthanam, Re.1 has to be paid to the Murai Gurukkal as Swarnapushpam, 0.25 paise has to be paid to Adhyayana Bhattar for Japa Dakshanai, 0.75 paise to the Gurukkals or Miras Pandarams who bring Thirumanjanam water and Re.1/- to the persons performing Abhishekam as Sramadhakshinai. Since both the Pandarams and Gurukkals work for the Abhishekam and Pandarams used to bring all the pooja articles from the respective places to the temple till the Arthamandapam and thereafter, Gurukkal alone will be permitted to enter into the santum for performing Abhishekam and poojas for the deity, the amount of Re.1 under the head Sramadhakshinai is divided by both the Pandarams and Gurukkals equally and as far as the Thirumanjanam fee is concerned, since the Pandarams alone are bringing the Thirumanjanam water, they have got exclusive right and therefore, the Thirumanjanam fee of 0.75 paise should go to the Pandarams. Though earlier, the suit filed by a Pandaram went upto the High Court, the High Court held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the issue and only the 4th respondent has got the jurisdiction and therefore, the Pandarams approached the Deputy Commissioner, HR & CE, by filing O.A.No.116/79 which was partly allowed, against which, the Page 14 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S(MD)No.2 of 2012 appellant/Gurukkals filed appeal which was dismissed by the Commissioner, HR & CE and therefore, the appellant filed the present suit and the trial Court also considering the oral and documentary evidence, rightly dismissed the suit. Further, the right of Pandarams to Thirumanjanam has been recognised from time immemorial and since the appellant/Gurukkals are not bringing Thirumanjanam, Thirumanjanam fee has to go to Pandarams alone. Thus, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is liable to be set aside.
9. Heard both sides and perused the records.
10. Admittedly for the Dhandayuthapaniswamy Devasthanam, services of two persons are utilised who are Pandarams and Gurukkals. Even Exs.B26 and B27 clearly narrate the custom prevailed from the beginning in the said temple. It is not in dispute that both Pandarams and Gurukkals are rendering their services to the temple. Even as admitted by both the parties, Pandarams are extending their services to bring all the pooja articles from the respective places till Arthamandapam and helping the Gurukkals to perform Abishekams and poojas. Only the Page 15 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S(MD)No.2 of 2012 Gurukkals are permitted to enter into the sanctum to perform Abishekams and poojas to Lord Dhandayuthapaniswamy and rest of the services are rendered by the Pandarams. Apart from that, Pandarams are also taking the water for the Thirumanjanam till the Arthamandapam and then hand it over to the Gurukkals for Abishekam. Though Pandarams were not initially paid any amount, subsequently in 1970, ticket system was introduced and Devasthanam is collecting Rs.9.40/- for every Abhishekam, of which, Rs.6.40/- will be retained with the Devasthanam, Re.1 has to be paid to the Murai Gurukkal as Swarnapushpam, 0.25 paise has to be paid to Adhyayana Bhattar for Japa Dakshanai, 0.75 paise to the Gurukkals or Miras Pandarams who bring Thirumanjanam water and Re.1/- to the persons performing Abhishekam as Sramadhakshinai.
11. As per Ex.B14, the Pandarams who bring the Tirumanjanam are divided into 3 classification in the accounts:-
(a) Ayan Thirumanjana Pandarams.
(b) Kattalai Thirumanjana Pandarams.
(c) Ubhayam (turn) Thirumanjana Pandarams.
(a) The Ayan Thirumanjana Pandarams are bound to bring Page 16 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S(MD)No.2 of 2012 thirumanjanam for the 6 kala (period) pujas and abhishekams that the devasthanams perform to Sri Andawar in the Hill-temple.
(b) The kattalai Thirumanjana Pandarams are those worshippers to whom kattalai is given for any period out of the aforesaid 6 puja periods mentioned above by the devotees and who are bound to bring the thirumanjana kudam (pot) and those which they are asked to bring, for that purpose.
(c) The ubhaya Thirumanjana Pandarams are those who are duty bound to bring thirumanjanam as a service due to the temple considering the remuneration that they earn by performing archanas and abhishekams for the baktha janas (devotees).
Of these, the persons belonging to item (a) should receive the rice that is prescribed for them under the accounts, on the days when they bring the thirumanjanam.
The persons belonging to (a), (b) item for the remuneration that they earn by performing archana and abhishekam for the baktha janas (devotees), besides the ayan kattalai thirumanjana kudams (vessels), intended for them, they and each of the ubhaya thirumanjanam (Pandarams) shall bring as prescribed in the accounts. Page 17 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S(MD)No.2 of 2012
12. Thus, the Pandarams are taking Thirumanjanam water for Abhishekam and hand it over to the Gurukkals in the Arthamandapam and therefore they are entitled for the fee allotted for Thirumanjanam. The learned counsel for the appellant restricted his arguments stating that Thirumanjanam fee should also be divided by both the Gurukkals and Pandarams proportionately or equally, which has not been done by the 4th respondent. The main contention of the appellant is that Gurukkals are also bringing the Thirumanjanam water, but however, the evidence is silent about the distribution of Thirumanjanam fees to the Gurukkals. Reading of the entire materials produced by the Devasthanam, particularly, the earlier proceedings marked as Exs.B14, B26 and B27 gives a picture regarding the history of the temple and that there is a vital role of Pandarams in the temple and in olden days, Pandarams only were taking all the pooja articles from the land to top of the rock temple manually and also the water for six times abhishekams. Reading of Exs.B14, B26 and B27 shows that Pandarams are not given remuneration and they are only provided with cooked rice and subsequently Pandarams were helping the devotees to come to the temple and were also carrying pooja articles from the land to the top Page 18 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S(MD)No.2 of 2012 rock temple. Subsequently, things have been changed and the Devasthanam introduced ticket system and collected Rs.9.40/- for every abhishekam from the devotees as stated above.
13. Now the question to be decided is whether Pandarams alone are entitled for Thirumanjana fee that is 0.75 paise or both Pandarams and Gurukkals are entitled to divide the same proportionately. Reading of Ex.A1-order passed by the 4th respondent in A.P.No.10/90 dated 19.11.1990, shows that the 4th respondent has clearly narrated the system prevailed in the temple. Pandarams alone are contributing their services regarding the bringing of Thirumanjanam water for abhishekam and even from Exs.B14, B26 and B27, it could be seen that the right to bring Thirumanjanam water is exclusively given only to Pandarams. Nowhere, it is stated that Gurukkals are also contributing their services regarding the bringing of Thirumanjanam water.
14. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, though the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that in the evidence, the defendants 1 to 3 admitted that some of the Gurukkals Page 19 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S(MD)No.2 of 2012 are also taking the water, the appellant cannot claim it as a matter of right. The right to bring Thirumanjanam water has not been given to Gurukkals from the beginning. With the available documents like, Exs.B14, B26 and B27, this Court is able to see that Pandarams alone are entrusted with the bringing of Thirumanjana water from the earmarked places till the Arthamandapam, that is, the inner room of the temple next to sanctum and thereafter, Gurukkals are using the said Thirumanjanam water for abhishekam of the Lord Dhandayuthapaniswamy which is installed in the sanctum. Therefore, the role of Pandarams is vital from the time immemorial in the Dhandayuthapaniswamy Devasthanam. The 4th respondent, Commissioner, HR & CE, considering the custom prevailed in that temple and also the role played by the Pandarams, rightly passed an order under Ex.A1.
15. This Court as a first appellate Court which is a final Court of fact finding, has to re-appreciate and give independent finding. This Court independently weighing the entire materials and considering the oral and documentary evidence of both the parties and also the Page 20 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S(MD)No.2 of 2012 judgment of the trial Court, does not find any perversity or good reason to interfere with the said judgment.
16. In view of the above, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
bala 16.08.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
To
The Subordinate Judge,
Srivilliputhur.
Page 21 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S(MD)No.2 of 2012
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
bala
JUDGMENT MADE IN
A.S(MD)No.2 of 2012
DATED : 16.08.2022
Page 22 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis