Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.99 seconds)
S. Pitchai Ganapathy & Ors vs Commissioner on 10 September, 2001 cites

The Commissioner For Hindu Religious ... vs A.P.S. Sethurama Pillai And Ors. on 7 August, 1959

In ascertaining the same the trial court relied upon a decision of the Madras High Court in The Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras vs. A.B.S. Sethurama Pillai & Ors., reported in 1960 M.L.J. 157, to the effect that where there is no proof that any dedication of the temple to the public has been made or that the public worship in the temple as of right at any time the institution is a private temple only and the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board would have jurisdiction to initiate proceeding or regulate the management by a scheme in respect of such a private temple under the Act. Proceeding on this basis the trial court considered the effect of the earlier litigation and looked into the plaint and decree passed in the prior proceedings in O.S. No. 278 of 1966, O.S. No. 511 of 1881 and O.S. No. 577 of 1888 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Madurai Town. It was stated that one Muthauee alias Meenakshi Ayi wife of Chockalingam Pillai had one daughter by name Karuppayee who had three daughters (i) Periya Chellammal alias Sornathammal, (ii) Chinna Chellammal and (iii) Abbirami Ammal Periya Chellammal alias Soranhammal who had three sons (1) K.S. Kalyanasundaram Pillai, who was the first plaintiff (2) Appavu Pillai, the second plaintiff and (3) Shanmugam Pillai, the father of the third plaintiff. Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 died during the pendency of the suit and plaintiff Nos. 6, 7 and 8 who were their legal representatives were brought on record. Muthayee alias Meenakshi Ayi wife of Chockalingam Pillai as hereditary Pujaris and trustee of the temples in the suit property filed O.S. No. 278 of 1866 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Madurai Town against the Government for an injunction not to interfere with her possession and enjoyment of a pandal put up in the suit property and also not to prevent her from putting up constructions in the suit property. After referring to various proceedings, the trial court held that the title of the ancestors of the plaintiffs to the suit property has been judicially recognised. However, in resisting this plaint, the defendants to the said suit pointed out that the temples in question are situate in between Swami Sannadhi and Amman Gopuram of Sri Meenakshi Temple and adjacent to the eastern Thirumathil of the said temple and geographical lie of the suit temple in between Swami Sannadhi and Amman Gopuram of Sri Meenakshi Temple which will facilitate the public to worship would indicate that the suit temple is a public temple. An Inspector of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department conducted an enquiry during the pendency of the proceedings in O.A. No. 23 of 1971. The report and plans made by him were Exhibits in the suit wherein he stated that the suit temples have the features of the public temple; that during Adi Pournami Day the devotees of Pathinethampadi Karuppanaswamy would take sandal paste from the suit temple and go to Pathinethampadi Karuppanswamy temple at Alagarkoil accompanying with Pujaris of the suit temple and apply sandal paste in the doors of the Pathinethamapadi Karuppanswamy temple at Alagarkoil; that for applying the sandal paste the Pujaris of the suit temple would collect 60 paise per pot; that for collecting such fee per pot by the Pujaris Alagarkoil Devastham are levying fees to the Pujaris of the suit temple. These facts have been admitted by P.W. 1. It was contended before the trial court that the suit property must be a public temple and the claim of the plaintiffs that the suit temple as well as the suit property are their private properties could not be accepted. The trial court rejected these contentions. By mere fact that the suit temples are situate adjoining Thirumathils of Sri Meenakshi Temple in between Swami Sannadhi and Amman Gopuram on the south, on the north by Meenakshi Temple Nandavanam, on the east by East Chitrai Street and on the west by Sri Meenakshi Temple Thirumathil it cannot be construed that the suit temples must be public temples to bring them under the definition of Section 6(20) of the Act. It was held that there must be a dedication to and for the benefit of the Hindu community or any section thereof and it must be used as of right by the Hindu community and it is quite clear that the geographical situation of the suit property alone would not be sufficient to come to the conclusion that the suit temples are private temples. Adverting to the report and the oral evidence of the Inspector, the trial court held that he had not seen any temple records to show that the suit temples are adjacent to the second respondent temple and he stayed in the temple for about 40 minutes but he had not seen any member of the public worshiping in the suit temples. Thereafter, the trial court adverted to the oral evidence of D.W. 2, Peshkar of Sri Meenakshi Temple, who has been holding the office for about 32 years, and stated that in his 32 years of service he paid visit to the suit temple nearly for five times and he had seen Thoobakkal, Theebakkal, Vibhoothi Thattu, Bell, Soodathattu. From his evidence the trial court drew an inference that the suit temples are not under the management of the second respondent temple and no member of the public had been examined to establish the fact that public were worshiping in the suit temples. It was stated that if any death occurs in the houses of any one of the family members of the plaintiffs, the temple would be kept closed nearly for 16 days and after that, they would perform poojas in the temple. The trial court also noticed that in respect of temples in the State of Madras there is a strong presumption that they are public institutions. The trial court proceeded to hold that the temples in question are very ancient temples whose origin is unknown and there is no evidence as to who founded it or built its institutions. A very ancient document was produced to show that Muthayee alias Meenkashi Ayi had mortgaged her property nearly 100 years ago for the purpose of construction of the suit temples. However, the trial court held that even before the execution of the said mortgage deed the temples in question were in existence. However, the trial court did not agree with the contention that when the origin of the temples could not be established the burden lay heavily upon the plaintiffs to establish that the temples are private ones and held that there is no proof that the members of the public are entitled to worship in the suit temples as of right and came to the conclusion that the suit temples are private temples.
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1