K V GOPINATHAN Vs. KANNANKAV DEVASOM UDAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the suit filed under Section 62(2) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, Act 19 of 1951 (for short "the Act") would tantamount to an appeal filed against the order passed by the Commissioner under Section 61 of the Act is inter alia the question that has come up for consideration in this case ?

(2.) Appellants herein were defendants 1 to 5 in O.S. No. 107 of 1999. They filed O.S. No.1 of 1990 before the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religions and Charitable Endowments (Administration) Department, filed application for a declaration that Sree Kannenkavu Bhagavathy temple is a public religious institution within the meaning of Section 57 (a) of the Act and also for framing a scheme for administration of the temple. The Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 5-1-1998 allowed the application on the following reasoning. "Sree Kannenkavu Bhagavathy temple is an ancient temple and its trusteeship vest with Azhuvancherry Mana. It is true that properties were given out to the temple and this property does not yield any income. The temple is one run on mainly on donations received from the public and the poojas and festivals are mainly performed through public participation and donation. The public used to attend various duties in connection with the festival of the temple. Moreover, the plaintiff in O.S. 67/82 of the Sub Court, Tirur viz. the trustee of the temple has stated in that original suit that the public right is only limited to worship the deity. So as admitted the public has a right to worship the deity. The evidences given by the witnesses also prove that the public has a right to worship in the temple and as a matter of right they attend certain duties in connection with the festival of the temple. All this show that this temple has got all the characteristic of a temple having public nature." On the above reasoning the Deputy Commissioner declared that the temple is a public religious institution.

(3.) First respondent preferred an appeal to the Commissioner under Section 61 of the Act. The Commissioner rejected the appeal and held as follows :