Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This appeal by special leave is against the judgment in Letters Patent Appeal No. 206 of 1992 on the file of the High Court of Madras. The question raised in this appeal is as to whether the temples of the Madurai Veerasami and 18 Padi Karupannasami Temple are 'private temples' of the appellants' family or they belong to the second respondent temple Meenakshi Sundereswarar Temple, Madurai or a sub-temple belonging to as claimed by respondents.

2. The appellants claim that the two shrines of Madurai Veerasami and 18 Padi Karupannasami Temple are situate in a premises bearing Door No. 52, East Chitrai Street, Madurai: that adjoining these temples are two shops in premises bearing Door Nos. 51 and 53: that they are 'private temples' and are in their possession and enjoyment as such; that though they were situate in 'paramboke' lands of the Government, these lands on which the temple situate are recognised as private lands of the appellants in the proceedings of the Collector dated 1.9.1941 and even earlier: that the origin of the temple is lost in antiquity: that as far as they could trace the records their great great great mother Meenakshi Ayi had come to be in the possession and enjoyment of the temple through her father who was a Pujari of the temple from about 100 years now; that the litigation raised as early as in 1884 ended in her favour; that there are several documents to show that she constructed a pucca building which was only thatched sheds by raising loans and was in possession and enjoyment of them as her private temples; that even now the members of the appellants alone worship the deities in the temples.

5. In the High Court the learned Single Judge, who considered the appeal filed by the Department and by Sri Meenakshi Sundaraswaran Temple, took the view that the suit temple is situate in Madurai Town and adjoining the famous Sri Meenakshi Sundaraswaran Temple and is situate in between the Swami Sannadhi and Amman Gopuram of Sri Meenakshi Temple and adjacent to the eastern Thirumathi of that Temple. The second plaintiff, who is now no more, had tendered evidence before the Deputy Commissioner wherein it is stated that the suit temple is situate not in a private land and he did not know how it belonged to his ancestors. It was situate in a paramboke land, but the learned Judge stated that in a place like Madurai Town a space adjoining Sri Meenakshi Sundaraswaran Temple none could claim Nathan right. The evidence disclosed that the suit temple is more than 200 years old. The second plaintiff admitted that he did not know when and why and by whom the suit temple was built. In Exhibit A-3 plaint copy in O.S. No. 511 of 1884 filed by Muthayee alias Meenakshi Ayi whom the plaintiffs claim as their ancestor, it is stated that suit temple had been built before the time of Karnataka Rajas and origin of which is not know. The learned Judge stated that considering the fact that the suit temple is on paramboke land in the heart of Madurai Town adjoining the famous Sri Meenakshi Sundaraswaran Temple, the legitimate inference would be that the founders of the temple intended it to be a temple for public worship and not for private worship. The learned Judge thereafter adverted to the nature of the temples with reference to Exhibit A-3 which is plaint in O.S 511 of 1884 wherein the temples had been described. After noticing the various parts of the temples, the learned Judge found that the description of the temples probalises that it could be a 'public' one rather than a 'private' one. P.W. 1, the sixth plaintiff, had stated that the suit temple was built by Muthayee alias Meenakshi Ayi but the himself admitted that the second plaintiff who was elder to him had more knowledge about the suit temples than he himself had. The learned Judge stated that his evidence is unbelievable. The second plaintiff in his evidence stated that during Adi Pournami from the suit temples persons of the public used to take sandal pots to Alagarkoil and for that the plaintiff used to collect fees from everyone. He further stated that subsequent to that also they used to collect fees doing "Dheeparathani". The learned Judge thereafter considered in detail the procedure in connection with the right to paste Alagarkoil and collection of fees. He did not accept the fact that the mere fact that the Inspector stayed in the temples for about 45 minutes would mean that he could not have seen persons coming to the suit temples for worship and, the oral evidence being very slippery, the learned Judge rejected the same. In regard to the documentary evidence, he noticed that they all indicated that the plaintiffs were Pujaris and trustees of the temples and that they might have right to be Pujaris or trustees but from that fact it could not be inferred that the suit temple is a 'private temple'. Even Muthayee alias Meenakshi Ayi filed O.S. No. 278 of 1866 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Madurai against the Government for injunction not to interfere with her possession and enjoyment of pandal put up in the suit properties only as a Pujaris of the temple and there was no claim made that the land did not belong to the temple put to an individual. In O.S. No. 511 of 1884 also the trustees and authorities of the suit temples had filed a suit for declaration of ownership of the suit properties and for injunction as Pujaris only. When the Municipal Corporation of Madurai took steps to acquire the verandah portion in front of the suit temple, Muthayee alias Meenakshi Ayi objected to the same acting again in the capacity of a Pujari of the temple. Therefore, the learned Judge observed that it is wrong to state, as the trial court had done, that the said legal proceedings had recognised the plaintiffs' ownership to the suit temples.