PARASAMAYA KOLERINATHA MADAM Vs. P NATESA ACHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant Math was the Plaintiff in a suit (C.S. No. 2/1983) filed against the Respondents 1 and 2 (Defendants 1 and 2) and two others on the file of the Madras High Court. The Appellant math situated in Tirunelveli, claims to be the owner of property bearing No. 16, Chandrabanu Street, Komaleeswararpet also described as Komaleeswaranpettai, Chennai (described in the first schedule to the plaint) known as Parasamaya Kolerinatha Madam and several idols including those of Goddess Meenakshi, Lord Vigneshwara, Lord Murugan installed therein (described in the second schedule to the plaint), together referred to as the Rs. suit property.

(2.) The plaint averments in brief are: The Appellant is a Math established several centuries ago at Tirunelveli by Swami Anavaratha Soundaraja Perumal. The Mathadhipathi of the Math is elected for life by the Viswakarma community. In the year 1922, a suit (OS No. 58/1922 as the file of the Sub-court, Tirunelveli) was filed for framing a scheme for regulating the succession and administration of the Plaintiff Math and its properties. In the said suit, a scheme was framed by order dated 2.5.1925. The suit property was one of the properties shown as vested in the Math in the final decree in the said scheme suit. The suit property was owned by the Plaintiff Math for several centuries and the Head of the Math would stay there during his visit to the city. His disciples were regularly using the premises and staying therein. The Math premises were being managed by a nominee of the Math. The idol of Goddess Meenakshi and the statue of the Head of the Math with his Padukas were installed by the Math in the suit property in the eighteenth century and were worshipped by the disciples of the Math and other devotees. As the Headquarters of the Math was situated at the far-away Tirunelveli, the Mathadhipathi had entrusted the management of the said Math property to nominated Agent/s who were the local elders of the Viswakarma community. When a new Mathadhipathi was installed on 17.8.1981, he sent his agent to routinely enquire about the affairs of the Math property in Chennai and learnt that the persons earlier managing the property had handed over the management to Defendants 1 and 2. When the Mathadhipathi visited Chennai in 1982 and stayed in the suit property. One R. Venugopal Achari who was appointed to look after the suit property in the year 1963, informed the Mathadhipathi that he had handed over management to Kanagasabapathy Achary who in turn handed over management to Defendants. When the Mathadhipathi sent word to Defendants to come and discuss the affairs of the Math, they did not turn up, but the community people spoke to the Mathadipathi and made several complaints about the irregular and ineffective management by Defendants 1 and 2. Further inquiries revealed that Defendants 1 and 2 were attempting to claim that the suit property with the Meenakshiamman idol as a temple independent of the Math, managed by the local Viswakarma community and had arranged for Kumbabishekam without the knowledge and consent of the Mathadhipathi. In view of the above, the Plaintiff Math filed the said suit and sought a declaration of title to the suit property (with the idols and movables therein) and delivery thereof.

(3.) Defendants 1 and 2 resisted the suit. They contended that the suit property (describing it as the Meenakshiamman temple) was a denominational temple that has been in existence for the benefit of the members of the Viswakarma community living in Komaleeswararpet in Chennai. The suit property was a temple and the Math did not Rs. exist in the suit property. The Plaintiff Math had no connection with the suit property. Neither the final decree nor the scheme in the scheme suit (O.S. No. 58 of 1922) relating to the Plaintiff Mutt was binding on the members of the community living in Komaleeswararpet in Chennai as they were not parties to the scheme suit. Though the temple in Komaleeswararpet was dedicated to Goddess Meenakshiamman, as Parasamaya Kolerinatha Swami was a great saint and Guru of Viswakarma community, the said temple was also called by the name of the said Swami, but the Plaintiff Math has nothing to do with the suit property. The said denominational temple was under the management of the members of the Viswakarma community through their elected representatives. In the beginning of the twentieth century, one Arumuga Achary was managing the affairs of the temple. Later one C. v. Raju Achary was the trustee till 1938. From 1938, Adhimoola Achary functioned as a Trustee with the assistance of a committee of members. Kanagasabai Achari became the Trustee in 1963 and in 1969, first and second Defendants along with one more person were elected as trustees and they were in management. The idols and statues in the temple were installed by the members of the Viswakarma community of Komaleeswararpet and not by the Plaintiff Math. The community performed the Kumbhabhishekam of the temple on 21.1.1983. They filed a petition in the office of the Commissioner for Religious and Charitable Endowments for framing a scheme for the said temple by impleading the Plaintiff math as a Respondent. The property did not belong to the Math and that for more than a century, the property has been under the absolute control of the members of the Viswakarma community of Komaleeswararpet. As the suit property was a temple and not a Math as defined under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (for short Rs. the Act) and as the Plaintiff Math have nothing to do with the property, the suit was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed.