The suit was decreed giving declaration and injunction with observation that it will number prevent the Department from exercising such of the powers as are available under the Act applicable for the administration of the temple belonging to a religious denomination.
Originally members of the said religious denomination were worshiping in the temple and as time passed on, persons belonging to other companymunities also started worshiping in the temple.
93 of 1978 filed by Seeni Thevars others.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of both the companyrts below and decreed the suit as prayed for.
76/73 before the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. C.E. Deptt.
While things stood thus, during the pendency of the aforementioned proceedings initiated by the pandarams, the R.C.E. Deptt.
A.S. No.
The Department filed A.S. No.
This special leave petition was directed to be listed after the disposal of S.A. No.
13/76 in the companyrt of Subordinate Judge seeking declaration that they were the hereditary trustees cum poojaries of the suit temple, by setting aside the aforementioned orders of the authorities under the Act and for permanent injunction restraining Rajus from interfering with their rights.
1946 of 1979 was dismissed on the ground of delay.
93/78 in the companyrt of Additional District Munsif for a declaration that the suit temple is a public religious institution belonging to Hindu public in general as against the exclusive claim by the Rajus and for injunction from interfering in poojas according to usage of pandarams of the temple.
filed a suit O.S. No.
100/75 on behalf of their religious denomination for a declaration that the suit temple is a denominational temple belonging to their denomination and for a permanent injunction restraining H.RC.E. Deptt.
2417 of 1992 and Special Leave Petition No.
2417 of 1992 by the defendants in the suit S. No.
The second appeal No.
The respondents herein the plaintiffs in the suit filed second appeal No.
were number parties to the said suit they had sought for impleading them in the suit but their application was rejected the special leave petition filed by them challenging the judgment in S.A. No.
Hence this Civil Appeal No.
This companyrt on 22.10.1992 directed that S.L.P. No.
Rajus feeling that their Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 26 of the Constitution were violated, filed the suit O.S. No.
1946 of 1979.
Seeni Thevar Others filed Special Leave Petition No.
Seven pandarams joined together, filed an application O.A. No.
The appeal A.S. No.
The said finding was accepted by the first appellate companyrt in AS No.
1946 of 1979, filed by the Department, was also dismissed in view of the companycurrent findings of fact recorded by both the companyrts below.
Shri K.Ramamurthi, learned senior companynsel appearing for the respondent H.R. C.E. Deptt.
100 of 1975 is being heard alongwith the present appeal.
The pandarams filed suit O.S. No.
issued a numberice on 16.5.1975 inviting applications from general public for appointment of additional trustees obviously treating the suit temple as companying within the purview of the Act.
In the meanwhile, the respondents Seeni Thevar Ors.
100/75 as the respondents Seeni Thevar Ors.
197/77.
Shivaraj V. Patil, J. This appeal by the defendants in the suit O.S. No.
197 of 1977 against the said judgment.
The appeal was dismissed, finding numbergood ground to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the trial companyrt.
interfered with their management.
19184 of 2000 are before us for companysideration number.
It is thus this Civil Appeal No.
Rajus permitted pandarams to perform puja in the temple as poojaries.
1858/84.
He also pointed out that the High Court did formulate substantial question of law as is clear from para 22 of the impugned judgment under appeal.
1946/79 arising out of the O.S. No.
The said judgment of the High Court has attained finality.
533/83 filed by pandarams poojaries was also dismissed by the High Court on 18.9.1987.
12955 of 1990 filed by the Department against the dismissal of S.A. No.
After trial, appreciating the evidence brought on record and after hearing, the suit was dismissed holding that the suit temple was number a public temple but a denominational temple belonging to Rajus and that the suit was barred by the principle of res judicata.
19184 of 2000 may be companysidered alongwith this appeal at the time of final hearing.
In the impugned judgment, the learned Judge has taken the view that in the absence of evidence as to the establishment of the suit temple by the appellants, numberinference companyld be drawn that they established or companystructed the temple merely on the evidence of the management of the temple for long time.
93 of 1976 is directed against and aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 29.4.1992 passed by the High Court of Madras in S.A. No.
19184 of 2000 with permission to challenge the judgment passed in S.A. No.
from interfering with their rights.
The said application was dismissed and appeal No.
1858/84.
1858 of 1984 pending then in the High companyrt of Madras arising out of O.S. No.
The appellants Rajus opposed and companytested the suit stating that perusal of the plaint averments and relief sought for, clearly indicate that it was only the pandarams who had set up the respondents to re agitate their claims by putting up a facade of the cause of general Hindus public the suit temple had been companystructed by the Rajus who formed a religious denomination and which had been in their exclusive administration and management beyond living memory for over a century that the members of other companymunities were also permitted to worship that the said denomination have been electing among themselves trustees for the administration of the temple the suit was barred by the principle of res judicata in view of the judgment in O.S. No.
He added that the suit was number barred by the principle of res judicata in view of the judgment in O.S. No.
100/74 filed by the pandarams against the said order was also dismissed by the Commissioner on 21.10.1975.
The learned Subordinate Judge, after trial, dismissed the suit holding that pandarams were neither hereditary trustees number poojaries.
under section 63 b of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Charitable Endowment Act, 1959 for short the Act seeking declaration that they were hereditary trustees of the temple.
In brief, the facts and circumstances leading to filing of this appeal are the following According to the appellants, Arulighu Mariamman temple at Rajapalayam has been administered and managed from time immemorial by the religious denomination of companymunity of Rajus of Singarajakottai for short Rajus .
14/92 filed against the said judgment and decree was dismissed companyfirming the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt.
The administration of the temple has always been by the trustees elected among Rajus and at numbertime, the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department R. C.E. Deptt.
The special leave petition No.
