Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(e) The 1st defendant states that from 1929 till today the institution is only a samadhi and whatever might have been constructed they are adjuncts of the said samadhi. The samadhi and the observance which go around it are inseparable. The 1st defendant further states that the presence of the idol of Lord Muruga and of Srimath Pamban Swamigal as an adjunct to the samadhi would be considered and intended merely to invest the observances in the samadhi with some religious tinge in gratitude to a great Saint who had worked for the Philosophy of Sudda Advaita Vaideeka Saiva Sidhantha. The defendant states unequivocally that there is no dedication to the public. There is no compartmentalisation between the samadhi and idols installed in 1958 and 1962 and they are inseparable entities. There is no dedication of any property either to samadhi or the idols founded in 1958 which is an adjunct. There are no Dwajasthambams, no Garbegiriham nor any Bali Peetam. At the time of foundation of Lord Muruga idol, there is no corresponding utsava idol. The worship was maintained and expenses were met by the members of the Maha Tejo Mandala Sabha. There are no features which substantiate any dedication to the public and as such the above institution can never be characterised as a religious institution or a public religious endowment. The first defendant stated that Mr.Chinnasamy Josier died in the year 1951 and his mortal remains were interned in a place proximate to the samadhi of Srimath Pamban Swamigal and the Maha Tejo Mandala Sabha has also constructed a samadhi in commemoration of the said Subramania Dasar to whom Srimath Pamban Swamigal had made special and significant reference in is works particularly in Ashoka Salavasam which is a scripture enjoined to be studies at the time of MayuraVahana Seva ordained to be performed by Srimath Pamban Swamigal.

(f) In the year 1971, when the Department tries to clutch at the jurisdiction over the samadhi Nilayam, the then secretary of Maha Tejo Mandala Sabha Mr.T.T.Kuppusamy Chettiar filed a writ petition in W.P.No.3501 of 1971 and the same was allowed. The 1st defendant states that in contravention and in open violation of the ruling of the High Court in W.P.No.3501 of 1971 and in the absence of specific and valid declaration under Section 63 (a) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act as to whether the place of Srimath Pamban Swamigal is a samadhi or temple, the department has absolutely no jurisdiction to exercise any control or supervision over the management of the institution and in the terrorism had allegedly procured a letter from T.T.Kuppusami Chettiar on 09.08.1984 and had taken over the management of the institution with a character of a temple. The appointment of fit person and Executive Officer is also void. Further the want on destruction of the superstructure of the samadhi including the plaques in the samadhi if Srimath Pamban Swamigal and the demolition of the superstructure over the samadhi done under the guidance of Thiruppani committee are one among any perpetrated illegal acts. The 1st defendant states that the institution is a samadhi and the evidence from 1929 to 1984 clearly substantiates the fact that the institution was treated only as samadhi and not as a temple merely on the fact that the idols have been installed only in 1958. As the property on which the samadhi is situated belongs to Maha Tejo Mandala Sabha and as the building constructed by Masilamani Mudaliar, one of the committee members as Archalai for feeding poor without distinction of caste, creed or religion which is situated over the property is composite in character and such the Department has no jurisdiction either to administer the same or to control the management.

73. The evidence produced on either side would go to show that in the samadhi of Swamigal an idol of Lord Muruga with peacock was put up by the then secretary Sri Bala Sundara Swamigal in the year 1958. Similarly in the year 1964 a statue of Swamigal was installed near the samadhi by T.T.Kuppusami Chettiar. The physical features of the institution was thus in the year 1971 when the fit person was called for by the department for being appointed to the institution. The evidence of P.W.3 Kumarasthava Ramanujam would show that he did not know about the history of the institution prior to 1984. However he had admitted in his evidence that there was another samadhi behind the samadhi of Swamigal and it was belonging to Chinnasami Josier. Similarly the evidence of P.W.1 Kannabiran would go to show that the samadhi of Chinnasami Josier was located near the samadhi of Srimath Pamban Swamigal. He would also admit in his evidence that there was a 'peedam' over the samadhi of Chinnasami Josier. P.W.3 had admitted in his cross examination that the idol of Mayuranathar was above the samadhi and it was stated to have been installed in the year 1958 and he knew about that in the year 1970 and from the said year 1958 the disciples of Swamigal are performing Guru pooja every year. He would also admit in his cross examination that MayuraVahana Sevanam festival are being conducted still in course with the direction of the Swamigal in Ex.B.1 Will. Further he would admit in his evidence that it was directed by the Hon'ble High court that the Maha Tejo Mandala Sabha has to conduct MayuraVahana Sevanam every year and the trophies of Lord Muruga alone taken in procession. In the background when we go through the evidence of D.W.1 who was representing the 1st defendant Sabha that he was attending the samadhi of Pamban Swamigal from year 1940 onwards and in the said samadhi, poojas are performed over the samadhi, two vels are kept and abishekam is being done and the 'Panchamirtha vannam' song would be sung and the 'Kumarasthavam archana' will be performed and there was a gate in front of the said samadhi and would be kept under a lock and key. There was an "Arachalai" construed by one Masilamani Mudaliyar. The Guru pooja of Swamigal would be celebrated during every Vaikasi month by the Maha Tejo Mandala members and abishekam and aradhana would also be done. There would not be any daily pooja for the samadhi.

After amendment is carried out the definition of religious institution runs as follows;

(18) "religious institution" means a math, temple or specific endowment."

Therefore,we could see that the word samadhi has been removed with effect from 1.04.2008. When we see the reasons and objections of the Act it is stated that in order to avoid the samadhis of persons except saintly person to be brought under the purview of the Act the amendment has been sought for.

77. Admittedly, the samadhi of Chinnasami Josier was located adjacent to Srimath Pamban Swamigal. When Chinnasami Josier was not spoken to be a saintly person the Gurupooja performed for Srimath Pamban Swamigal cannot be considered as the celebration of pojja to the tomb of Chinnasami Josier also. Moreover, there is no evidence to show that poojas were done for the Chinnasami Josier along with the poojas done to the samadhi of Swamigal. In the aforesaid circumstances, the removal of the word samadhi from the definition Section 6 (18) of the Act regarding the description of religious institution is beneficial to the 1st defendant Sabha since the samadhi of Chinnasami Josier was adjacently present along with the samadhi of Swamigal. When the performance of guru pooja was admitted by both sides, the samadhi of Srimath Swamigal is predominant at the institution premises and the idols and other festivals conducted by the Sabha would be only adjuncts to the said samadhi and the Guru pooja.