Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The defendants deny the purchase of the suit land on 15.12.1968 by the said Perali Chettiar and the site does not belong to the plaintiffs and also deny the construction of temple by the plaintiff’s ancestors. Further the plaintiffs ought to prove the genealogy appended with the plaint and the relationship between Perali Chettiar and Soundeeswari Ammal. The name of the deity ‘Chaundeeswari Ammal’ has no relevance to ‘Soundeeswari Ammal’ who is alleged to be the heir of Perali Chettiar. Infact the temple is situated in S.No.74/1 in 10 cents at Thonugal Village. The total extent of S.No.74/1 is 1 acre and 64 cents and registered in patta (*)No.374 in the name of another temple called Arulmigu Veiyyulagandamman Temple and the kist for the total property is being paid by the Trustee of that temple. The defendants deny the suit temple was constructed by Soundappa Chettiar and Chinniah Chettiar out of their own funds. And deny the body of Soundeeswari https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 09:03:35 pm ) Ammal was buried within the premises of the temple and even assuming to be so, it will not clothe any rights or title in the temple for the plaintiffs. It is not true the poojas to the temple are being performed by the plaintiff's family. The poojas are performed twice a day by the poojari and prasadam is distributed to all gathering public. On Vijayadasami day, Chaundeeswari will be decorated and taken on procession in the streets of konars and moopanars, in the village. At the time of procession, archana will be done by the public belonging to all community of the village and nearby villages. The plaintiffs never administered the temple but administrated by the Board of Trustees belonging to different communities. It is not true the plaintiffs had paid the contribution by mistake. It is a statutory obligation to pay contribution and audit fees. The allegation that the plaintiffs were not allowed to examine the witnesses during the proceedings under section 63(a) of the Act is denied as false. Also, it is false to state the 2 nd defendant failed to examine the Inspector of HR&CE. Infact during enquiry on 17.07.1978 the report of the Inspector was marked with the consent of the Advocate of the plaintiffs and he did not object to the marking the report as C1 nor the advocate insisted the examination of the Inspector. Further the 2nd defendant never objected the examination of further witnesses on the side of petitioner. The plaintiffs attribute motive on the 2nd defendant, who is a quasi-judicial body is unwarranted. The defendants submitted https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 09:03:35 pm ) that the O.A.No.57 of 1976, filed by the plaintiffs before the 2nd defendant was dismissed after full enquiry. On the appeal filled by the plaintiff in A.P.No.2/84 it was rightly dismissed by the first defendant. The plaintiffs have no documentary evidence to substantiate their claim. The physical features of the temple clearly reveals the existences of Mahamandapam, Madappalli, Well, Nandi, Vinayagar which are the specific features or public temple. The order of the appellate authority was communicated in time and hence the suit is filed beyond limitation. Hence the defendants prayed to dismiss the suit.

22. The next contention of the defendant HR&CE is that the suit temple is a sub-temple and is being maintained by Arulmigu Veiyyulagandamman Temple. The said contention was considered by the Trial Court and the Trial Court had held the defendant had not produced any evidence to the prove the same. Further the Trial Court had held that the Arulmigu Veiyyulagandamman Temple’s Dharmakartha Thiru.Algu and Accountant Thiru.Muthukaruppan statements were recorded by the HR&CE, wherein the said persons have not stated that the suit temple is sub temple of Arulmigu Veiyyulagandamman Temple. And also, not stated that Arulmigu Veiyyulagandamman Temple is being maintained by them. Further it is seen that the records maintained in the Arulmigu Veiyyulagandamman Temple there is no whisper of any details regarding the suit temple, there are no records when the temple was built, who managed the temple, literally no records. On the other hand, the plaintiffs had produced records to show the land was purchased by their ancestors, the Will executed by Soundeeswariammal, records showing expenses etc. Further the statements of various persons belonging to the village Thenukal had admitted that the suit temple was constructed by the said Soundeeswariammal and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 09:03:35 pm ) the said statements are forming part of Ex.B3. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the suit temple is a private temple belonging to the plaintiffs and the same is nothing to do with the Arulmigu Veiyyulagandamman Temple. Infact the HR&CE is trying to annex the suit temple with Arulmigu Veiyyulagandamman Temple without any records and such act of highhandedness of the HR&CE should be deprecated.

23. The next contention of the defendants is that mere continuance of management by the plaintiff’s ancestors will not give any right to the plaintiffs and the same will not alter the original parameters of the public temple. In the absence of any documentary evidence relating to foundation, management and administration of the institution the temple cannot be declared as private. This contention is totally against the records of the defendants themselves. The Ex.B3 has the statements recorded by the defendants, wherein the statements would indicate that the temple is constructed by the said Soundeeswari Ammal through her own money and income from the their own properties. As stated supra the Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 and other documents would indicate the property belongs to the plaintiffs, the expenses are met out by the plaintiffs. Infact continuance of management of the plaintiffs itself would indicate that the maintenance is carried on by the plaintiffs through their own https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 09:03:35 pm ) source of income.

25. Finally, the contention of the defendant that the plaintiff’s advocate did not object for marking the Inspector’s report as C1 nor insisted the examination of the Inspector cannot be accepted. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the Inspector did not appear, the Deputy Commissioner of HR&CE had taken the Inspector’s report on record and marked as C1, which is not the procedure contemplated under the HR&CE Act. Infact under section 110 of the Act states any inquires under chapter V and VI ought to be conducted as per CPC. Under CPC all documents ought to be marked through the author of the document. If the report is not marked through the Inspector, then the same cannot be constructed it is marked as per CPC. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 09:03:35 pm )