Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6.11.1992 of Bellie, J., made in A.S.No. 555 of 1982 on the file of this Court, preferred against the judgment and decree dated 6.7.1981 made in O.S.No. 408 of 1976 on the file of the III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai.

2. The appellant filed O.S.No. 408 of 1976 to set aside the Order of the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. (Administration Department), Madras i.e., the first respondent herein, passed in A.P.No. 35 of 1974 dated 1.11.1975, confirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., (Administration Department), Madurai i.e., the 2nd respondent herein made in O.A.No. 57 of 1967 dated 21.1.1912 and as consequential relief of a permanent injunction restraining the Department from interfering with the management, administration and control of Sonaichamy Koil, which according to the appellant, is a private temple situated at Melaveli Street, Madurai Town. The case of the appellant as per the plaint allegations is that the properties described in the suit schedule are the private family trust properties of the appellant, that item No. 1 of the property described in the plaint schedule which is situated in West Veli Street, Madurai Town belonged to the private family trust of the appellant and his ancestors, formerly in the West Veli Street, Madurai Town, there were 21 peedams, which were Worshipped only by the family of the appellant and his pangalis, that they were retaining all the articles of the peedam in a box and kept it in a room in item No. 1 of the suit premises on the northern portion and the said portion of the suit property in which the articles and the peedams used to kept is called as "Angalaparameswari Koil Veedu", that there is an idol in the said room, that the trust was being managed by the plaintiff's ancestors from time immemorial. It is the case of the appellant that they were not aware of the fact that the site over which there were 21 peedams was acquired by the Government in 1918, and that in the year 1966, the Government with a view to locating the State Bus Stand sought to remove the peedams. So the appellant and the other two trustees filed a suit against the Government in O.S.No. 98 of 1966 on the file of the Sub-Court, Madurai praying for a decree for permanent injunction. The Government in its written statement pointed out that the site had already been acquired in the year 1918 for extension of the hospital and compensation had been paid to the then trustee Vellaisami Kothanar and that the suit was compromised between the trustees and the Government and so it was allowed to be dismissed by the plaintiff and the other two trustees. Thereafter, the Government removed all the peedams. There were only 3 idols out of the former twenty-one peedams. They were taken by the plaintiff and the other two trustees. The three idols were installed over a peedam immediately to the east of the State Bus Stand. The plaintiff has put up R.C. terrace over the peedam and has provided a collapsible gate and the idols installed in the road margin is being worshipped only by the appellant/plaintiff and his pangalis. No other person has been worshipping the deity as of right. Solaimalai Pillai, to whom the property had been leased out as per lease deeds dated 25.10.1962 and 23.10.1964 appears to have sub-leased two adjacent tenements out of the suit item No. 1 to one Nachimuthu Pillai. The latter did not pay the arrears to Solaimalai Pillai, who is a lessee of the plaintiff and his co-trustees. So an application for eviction was filed by Solaimalai Pillai along with the appellant/plaintiff and his co-trustees. Subsequently, as Nachimuthu Pillai demolished the intervening wall between the two tenaments, the plaintiff and others filed a suit in O.S.No. 573 of 1966 on the file of District Munsif, Madurai Town against Nachimuthu Pillai for the reliefs detailed in the suit. Aggrieved by this Nachimuthu Pillai moved the Assistant Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. (Administration Department), Madurai alleging that the suit property was a public temple and that he may be appointed as the trustee of the temple. The Assistant Commissioner, without issuing any notice and without holding any enquiry, appears to have appointed Nachimuthu Pillai as the sole trustee after holding that the suit trust was a public temple. There upon, the appellant/plaintiff filed O.A.No. 57 of 1967 before the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Madurai the 2nd respondent herein contending that Sonaichami koil was only a private trust and not a public temple and that, therefore the provisions of the H.R. & C.E., Act did not apply. Nachimuthu Pillai who was appointed as a trustee was also added as a respondent to the said application. The original application was filed for a declaration that the trust was a private trust and the provisions of the Act did not apply. The Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 21.1.1972 held that the suit temple was a public temple and dismissed the application filed by the appellant and the other trustees. Subsequently, the appellant and the other trustees jointly preferred an appeal in A.P.No. 35 of 1974. The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Madras, who is the first respondent herein by his order dated 1.11.1975 dismissed the appeal. One of the trustees Sundaram Pillai also died by then. The Deputy Commissioner as well as the Commissioner of H.R. & C.E., i.e., the 2nd and the 1st respondent herein had not considered the various documents which were exhibited before them for consideration. According to the appellant, all the documents filed before the authorities would show that the suit trust is a private trust and that the public have nothing to do with the trust and no member of the public had ever worshipped the Sonaichami Peedam which is called Sonaichami Koil, and that Sonaichami Peedam is now situate south of Madurai State Bus stand near the entrance gate. The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. by his order dated 1.11.1975 dismissed the appeal which was communicated to the appellant's advocate on 1.5.1976. This suit has been filed thereupon for the reliefs mentioned above. The appellant has laid the statutory suit as the sole surviving trustee. He prayed for setting aside the order of the respondents 1 and 2 dated 1.11.1975 and 21.1.1972 respectively.

Again, the learned single Judge held in his judgment as:
Admittedly there is daily pooja. As seen above the plaintiff is away in Sholavandan. He would have us believe that he would daily come in bus to perform poojas. He would himself say that this temple is there for about 200 years. He would admit that there is no record whatsoever to show that the temple belongs to his family or himself and his pangalis. He would say that only from 1949 he came to know about the affairs of the temple. Therefore he is not competent to say about the origin of the temple. May be one or two ancestors of his had been trustees of the temple and the properties belonging to the temple. But that does not mean that the temple and the properties belonged to the plaintiff or the members of his family. He would say that in 1949 himself and two others were elected trustees by his pangalis, and himself and the said two pangalis have executed a trust deed and that is Ex.A-11. But a perusal of this document would show that they have described themselves as the trustees of Sonaichamy temple at Dindigul Road and not Sonaichamy Koil at Mela Veli Veedhi. The circumstances would belie the plaintiff's contention that he is a trustee of Sonaichamy temple in question. This would indeed show that he has nothing to do with Sonaichamy koil.