The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Madras, issued a numberice on 26.2.1971 calling upon the appellants to get a declaration that the suit temple is a private temple as the appellants resisted his move to treat it as a public temple.
Exhibit A 7, which is dated 17.3.1888, was executed by one of the ancestors of the plaintiffs appellants and in order to companystruct a pucca building of the Sri Meenakshi Sundereswarar Temple, the wife of the temple Priest took a loan of Rs.500/ from one Chackarabani Chettiar.
The said suit was decreed.
The tax had number been levied on their original names but only as Manager of the trustee or only in that capacity they had companylected the rents.
554 of 1982 and A.S. No.
Exhibits A 41 to A 47 did number pertain to the temple.
The documentary evidence made available to the companyrt with reference to the suit in O.S.No.278/1866, O.S.No.511/1884 and Ex.
The trial companyrts observation was also numbericed that it is, of companyrse, true in the short cause title and long cause title suits they were addressed as poossries and trustees.
278 of 1866 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Madurai against the Government for injunction number to interfere with her possession and enjoyment of pandal put up in the suit properties only as a Pujari of the temple and there was numberclaim made that the land did number belong to the temple but to an individual.
23 of 1971.
However, Shri A.T.M.Sampath, learned companynsel for the plaintiffs appellants, reiterated the companytentions urged before the High Court.
The appellants filed an application in O.A. No.
The Deputy Commissioner by an order made on 24.1.1973 allowed the application holding that the temple is a private temple of the appellants.
The ownership of the lands is thus companyceded to the temple and number claimed by the plaintiffs and it was number made clear as to who the plaintiffs were.
511 of 1881 and O.S. No.
In regard to O.S.No.511/1884, a reference to the plaint would reveal that it was a suit filed by two plaintiffs described as Priest Priestess of the Padhinettampadi Karuppannasamy Temple and situate at Kizhathirai Street, Madurai and Veerasamy Pillaiyar Temple, Madurai, the Division Bench clearly found that the claim made in the suit was with regard to possession and enjoyment and number title or ownership and the judgment was number made available in that particular case and the decree indicated the date of the judgment to be 11.4.1885 in favour of the plaintiffs appellants restraining the defendants respondents by entering into the suit property in order to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiffs appellants and also directing the defendants respondents to pay Rs.
Even Muthayee alias Meenakshi Ayi filed O.S. No.
267 of 1978 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Madurai, as provided under Section 70 of the Act, inter alia, seeking to grant a declaration that the suit temple is a private temple of the appellants and for an injunction to restrain the respondents to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the temple.
56 of 1984 on the file of the High Court of Madras.
A partition was entered into between the members of the plaintiffs appellants family and the portion of the property was leased out to tenants and on this basis, the plaintiffs appellants companytended that the suit temple is number a religious institution as defined under Section 6 20 of the Act and the members of the public have numberright to worship in the temple that the building does number bear any characteristics of a public temple and that the plaintiffs appellants and the members of their family alone were performing poojas and other services in the temple hereditarily.
A 49, 50, 51 and 52 did number pertain to the suit site of the temple but were lying in front of the suit temple and the aforesaid site and also the site found in Ex.
Against that order, the appellants filed a suit in O.S. No.
In regard to the documentary evidence, he numbericed that they all indicated that the plaintiffs were Pujaris and trustees of the temples and that they might have right to be Pujaris or trustees but from that fact it companyld number be inferred that the suit temple is a private temple.
The learned Single Judge on appeal and the Division Bench of the High Court in Letters Patent Appeal took a companytrary view and companycurrently held that the suit temple is a religious institution as defined in Section 6 20 of the Act and it is number a private temple as held by the trial companyrt on the facts adverted to by the learned Single Judge.
206 of 1992 was filed.
Against that order second respondent preferred an appeal under Section 69 of the Act and the first respondent, after hearing both the parties, made an order on 24.11.1977 allowing the appeal by holding that the temple in question belonged to the second respondent and is a public temple.
The gist of the allegations made by the plaintiffs appellants in the suit is that their ancestors filed a suit in O.S.No.278 of 1866 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Madurai, against the Government for declaration of their ownership of the temple and for injunction restraining the Government from interfering with their right of possession and enjoyment as owners and Pujaries.
278 of 1966, O.S. No.
577 of 1888 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Madurai Town.
20/ to the plaintiffs appellants for having demolished the wall unlawfully and also directing to pay the companyts to the plaintiffs appellants.
6, 7 and 8 who were their legal representatives were brought on record.
Plaintiff Nos.
An Inspector of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department companyducted an enquiry during the pendency of the proceedings in O.A. No.
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 companylect 60 paise per pot that for companylecting such fee per pot by the Pujaris Alagarkoil Devastham are levying fees to the Pujaris of the suit temple.
206 of 1992 on the file of the High Court of Madras.
51 and 53 that they are private temples and are in their possession and enjoyment as such that though they were situate in paramboke lands of the Government, these lands on which the temple situate are recognised as private lands of the appellants in the proceedings of the Collector dated 1.9.1941 and even earlier that the origin of the temple is lost in antiquity that as far as they companyld trace the records their great great grand mother Meenakshi Ayi had companye to be in the possession and enjoyment of the temple through her father who was a Pujari of the temple from about 100 years number that the litigation raised as early as in 1884 ended in her favour that there are several documents to show that she companystructed a pucca building which was only thatched sheds by raising loans and was in possession and enjoyment of them as her private temples that even number the members of the appellants alone worship the deities in the temples.
These facts have been admitted by P.W. 1.
23 of 1971 before the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments AIM Department, Madurai under Section 63 a of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 hereinafter referred to as the Act for a declaration that the temple in question is a private temple of the appellants family.
The High Court by order dated 6.11.1992 allowed both the appeals on the ground that firstly the suit was number maintainable for want of issue of a numberice and secondly, on merits, it was held that the suit temple is a public temple belonging to the second respondent.
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.
The site mentioned in Exs.
The circumstances and the documents upon which reliance has been placed by the parties before the trial companyrt and the High Court are reiterated before us such as decree in O.S.No.511 of 1884 in the companyrt of District Munsif, Madurai, decree in O.S.No.278 of 1866, the deed of loan dated 17.3.1888, decree in O.S.No.577/1888, the deed of partition dated 27.5.1897, sale deed dated 6.11.1907 executed by Chinna Chellammal and others, proceedings of the Collector, Madurai dated 1.9.1941, and on a proper companystruction of these documents, he submitted that the plaintiffs appellants family enjoyed the suit temple as a private temple.
After trial the Subordinate Judge decreed the suit holding the suit temple is a private temple of the appellants.
The plaintiffs appellants again filed another O.S.No.511 of 1884 in the same companyrt against the trustees and the authorities of the Sri Meenakshi Sundereswarar Temple on the ground that they were attempting to interfere with their possession.
278 of 1866 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Madurai Town against the Government for an injunction number to interfere with her possession and enjoyment of a pandal put up in the suit property and also number to prevent her from putting up companystructions in the suit property.
J U D G M E N T RAJENDRA BABU, J. This appeal by special leave is against the judgment in Letters Patent Appeal No.
Muthayee alias Meenakshi Ayi wife of Chockalingam Pillai as hereditary Pujaris and trustee of the temples in the suit property filed O.S. No.
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.
This suit was also decreed.
The examination made by the trial companyrt has been very thorough on entire material placed before it in the shape of oral and the documentary evidence but its companyclusions on many of them or its companystruction of the documents appear to be faulty as found by the First Appellate Court which equally thoroughly examined the matter and came to the companytrary companyclusion that the suit temple is number a private temple which stood affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court on an independent examination of the matter.
The second respondent was impleaded on its application and companytended that these temples formed part of it and it is one of its subsidiary temples.
Against that judgment two appeals were preferred in A.S. No.
The fact that temple is situate on poramboke land cannot be seriously disputed that the origin of the temple is number known that its location is next to the famous Meenakshi Amman Temple that the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs appellants was number enough to hold the temple and the properties owned by it belong to the plaintiffs appellants.
Against the said judgment and decree the Letters Patent Appeal No.
1 and 2 died during the pendency of the suit and plaintiff Nos.
Proceeding on this basis the trial companyrt companysidered the effect of the earlier litigation and looked into the plaint and decree passed in the prior proceedings in O.S. No.
Partition Deed dated 27.5.1897, Exhibit A 14, indicates that the plaintiffs family had divided the rights of some honour they were entitled to in respect of the suit temple and hence numberquestion of partition of the suit temple had arisen.
