Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

46. In Sri Ramanasramam v. Commr.; H.R. & C.E. , it was held that the Madras Act XIX of 1951 is intended to apply only to religious institutions and endowments which are exclusively Hindu in character. The connotation of a temple as defined in the Act consists of the following two component parts, viz., it must be an exclusively Hindu institution and it must be exclusively a place of Hindu public religious worship. A temple must conform to Agama Sastras or by immemorial public usage must have come to be regarded as a place of public religious worship notwithstanding its non-conformance with the Agama Sastras. The Samadhi described as Mathru-bootheswarar temple is an adjunct to the Ramanasramam and is certainly hot the core around which the Asramam grew. This institution is a composite institution and in accordance with the founder's universal outlook is open to devotees of all religious. It stands to commonsense also that no exclusively Hindu shrine would be an appenage of a cosmopolitan Ashrani and where "persons of other religion were consistently paying homage at the shrine. The building of a Samadhi or a tomb over the remains of a person and the making of the provision for the performance of Gurupooja and other ceremonies in connection, with the same is not recognized as charitable or religious purposes according to Hindu Law. It has become settled law that a Samadhi by itself and not treated as a fitting object of public Hindu religious worship for over a long period does not evolve into a temple.

53. In Chennammal v. Commr. H.R. & C.E. , it was held that before a temple can come within the scope of the definition in Section 6(20) in Madras Act XXII of 1959 two conditions must be cumulatively satisfied. One is it must be a place of public religious worship. Secondly, it must have been dedicated for the benefit of the Hindu community or any section thereof. Alternatively, it must have been used as of right as a place of public religious worship by the Hindu community or any section thereof. Unless both these conditions are jointly satisfied, a temple will not come within the scope of the definition contained in this Act. It was further held that the law is well-settled that, when the origin of the temple is known as a private temple, then the clearest possible evidence is necessary for converting that temple into a public temple. The main characteristis of a public temple is that it is intended for the use of the public or a section thereof. On the other hand, private temples are intended for the worship by the members of the family of the donor exclusively. The mere fact that outsiders are allowed to worship in a temple cannot necessarily mean that the temple was dedicated to the public, as no Hindu will ever prohibit strangers from offering worship to the deity enshrined in his private temple. In all such cases, worship by outsiders is referable to the leave and licence granted by hhe owner and cannot be indicative of any dedication to the public. In the absence of an express dedication for the benefit of the public, user by the public as of right must be established and such user as of right is far different from the trustees being willing to welcome the public to come and worship in the temple.

55. In Thanumalayaperumal Mudaliar v. Commissioner, Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowments Admn. Dept. , it was held that the three guidelines which enable the Court to decide whether a particular religious. institution comes within the scope of the meaning of Section 6-(20) of the Tamil Nadu H.R. & C.E. Act are that it should be a place of public worship, there should be acceptable proof of dedication for the benefit of the Hindu community or a section thereof and incidentally it should also be established that the worshippers have been using as of right the religious institution as a place of public religious worship. The other inspiring norms to decide whether a temple is a private or public temple are dependent upon the features of the institution.

60. In Kannan v. All India Sai Samaj , it was held that 'Sai Mandir' situate at Mylapore is not a place of public worship dedicated solely to the members of the Hindu community. Hence it is not a temple as defined in Section 6(20) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (XXII of 1959). 'Temple' is defined in Section 6(20) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act as a place of public religious worship and dedicated to or for the benefit of or used as of right by the Hindu community. Consequently, the suit institution cannot be said to be a> public temple.