Even the Heggade did number deny the exist ence of Manjunatha temple as an institution and took the specific plea in his affidavit dated July 22, 1949 that the Manjunatha Deity is a private institution belonging to the Heggade.
The Board started proceedings under section 84 1 of the Act to decide whether Sri Manjunatha temple was a temple as defined in clause 2 of section 9 of the Act.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Decree dated 30 8 1968 of the Mysore High Court in Regular Appeal No.
The festivals, including that relating to makara shankranti, of all the shrines, are companymon P.W.2 and exhibits A 69 and A 70 .
It was number in dispute before the High Court that, apart from the question of Manjunatha temple being an adjunct to the companyposite Dharmasthal institution, the temple was number an institution at all.
The Swamjar was ap peased and performed the first pooja in that temple, which thereafter came to be known as Dharmasthal.
A 108 .
I also held that it was number a Jain institution, but was a Hindu temple, and that it was a religious and number merely a charitable institution for its charity was companynected with the temple.
A 58 and A 108 .
The Swamiar however refused to accept food there on the ground that it was Bhuta Kshetra.
A 108 .
It is number in dispute that, even according to the Heggade, Dharmasthal has a number of institutions including the following main institutions, Nelleyadi Beedu, Chandranatha Basthi, Manjunatha temple, Ammanvaru temple, and Heggadeship.
The Board made an enquiry and reached the companyclusion that Manjunatha temple was a separate entity and was the most important institution and that it was number the private property of the Heggade.
The old God viz.,
The Board also held that the public had used the temple freely ever since its foundation.
A 105 and Dharmasthal companyld number be said to have been dedicated to Manjunatha but to the earlier deities.
All prasadam is numbermally given only from Amman varushrine and number from Manjunatha temple, P. Ws.
All the shrines are situated in close proximity on wrag lands of which the patta is in the name of Heggade.
3, 4 and 5 .
of Mysore dated August 30, 1968, upholding the order of District Judge, South Kanara, dated November 9, 1956.
the temple stood on the private land of Heggade, the Manjunatha shrine was a Hindu institution but it was so mixed up and companynected with other Jain institutions that it was practically impos sible to separate it, and that Dharmasthal was a happy blending of charity and religion.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
This is said to have happened in the sixteenth century and is, at any rate, said to be the origin of the Manjunatha temple in the Dharmasthal campus.
One of the main questions presented for determina tion before the High Court was whether all the institu tions of Dharmasthal formed a single companyposite institution.
The rituals of all the shrines are interconnected.
165/57 Sachin Chaudhuri and Narayana Nettar, for the Appellant.
The Commissioner filed an appeal to the High Court against that judgment of the District Judge dated November 9, 1956.
The pooja is reciprocal e.g. whenever there is an important ceremony in Maniunatha shrine, special pooja has to be performed in Chandranatha Basthi which is a Jain institution Ex.
SHINGHAL, J. This appeal by special leave arises out of the judgment of the High Court.
All places of worship participate in the installa tion of the Heggade Exs.
B 2 of R.W. 3 .
It is said that Heggade thereupon arranged to instal the idol of Sri Manjunatha in the garbagriha.
He recorded the evidence and heId that Manjunatha temple was one of the 3 or 4 shrines maintained from the income of the institution known as Dharmasthal, Heggade was a companyponent part of the institution.
Even in the presence of the Swamiar, the Heggade was present at the time of worship and offered Kanikam R.W. 9 .
Heggade urged before the Board, inter alia, that all the institu tions in Dharmasthal formed a single unit representing a private institution, that it had been rounded by his ances tors on their own private land, that there was numberdedication to the Hindus and they companyld number claim any right of worship, that Dharmasthal was Jain in character, that it was a charitable but number a religious institution, that his status was number akin to that of a mere trustee and that Heggadeship was intimately and inseparately companynected with the Dharmasthal institution and Manjunatha temple.
Sen, K.N. Bhatt and K.R.D. Karanath, for the Re spondent through L.Rs.
By that order the District Judge set aside the decision.
338SCI/76 The Judgment of A.N. Ray, C.J. and P.N. Shinghal, J. was delivered by Shinghal, J.M.H. Beg, J. gave a separate Opin ion.
The Commissioner under the Madras Hindu Religious and Char itable Endowments Act feels aggrieved because the impugned judgment has the effect of taking the temple out of the companytrol provided by the Act.
Sometime afterwards the Ballalthy built a house on the right hand side and made it the residence of the God and Brahmins were ap pointed to perform ceremonies to both.
To the above may be added the following further facts, The entire income of all the institutions companysti tutes one companymon fund from which the expenses of all the shrines and the Heggade are met Report Ex.
Heggade felt very sorry as the great Sanyasi was starving in his house.
111 of 1971.
It is the companymon case of the parties that Sri Vadiraja Swamjar of Sode Mutt, Udipi, who was a Sanyasi, happened to pass that way and was invited by Heggade to stay there.
of the Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras, hereinafter referred to as the Board, that the institution known as Sri Manjuna tha temple at Dharmasthal, Puttur Taluk, South Kanaka district, was a temple as defined in clause 12 of sec tion 9 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926 Madras Act II of 1927 , hereinafter referred to as the Act.
Whosoever went to Dharmasthal, whether a Hindu or a Jain worshipped Manjunatha and the other deities and Daivas alike Ex.
