MAHABALA SHETTY Vs. B ANANDA BALIGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question for decision in this appeal is whether the 1st defendant temple known as the Srimad Anantheshwar Temple of Manjeshwar (originally in the District of South Kanara of the Madras State and now, after the reorganisation of the States, in the District of Cannanore of this State) is a sectional temple belonging to the Gowda Saraswath Brahmin Community of South Kanara. The plaintiff, suing on behalf of the community by leave obtained under O.1 R.8 CPC, claimed that it was and that community alone had the exclusive right of management and performing the puja therein; and he sought a declaration to that effect. In the plaint as originally framed, he asked for the consequential relief of, a permanent injunction restraining the 2nd defendant (then the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board, and since, after the passing of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, substituted by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious, and Charitable Endowments, Madras) from introducing any form of agama, ritual or mode of worship in the said temple other than the existing form, contrary to the well established custom and usage. The suit was instituted on the 16th April 1947 in the Subordinate Judges Court of South Kanara and it was dismissed by that court on 2-12-1947 on the preliminary ground that its jurisdiction was barred by certain provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926 (II of 1927). The plaintiff appealed. The appeal was heard by the Madras High Court and by its judgment dated 22-1-1952, that court held that the suit was not totally barred, that the first relief claimed in the plaint was within the jurisdiction of a civil court, and that the provisions in question ousted its jurisdiction only in respect of the second relief. The High Court accordingly remanded the suit for trial in respect of the first relief, at the same time directing that the second relief be deleted from the plaint. The prayer for the second relief was therefore deleted when the suit went back for retrial, but a new prayer was introduced in its place, and that asked for a cancellation of a notification (marked as Ext. B-1 in the case) issued in 1939 by the Government of Madras under S.65-A(5)(b) of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act (II of 1927) declaring that the temple, which was theretofore governed by a scheme of administration settled by court, shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter VI-A of the Act. In support of this prayer it was said that the said notification was bad in that it violated Art.25 and 26 of the Constitution.

(2.) As we have seen, the 1st defendant is the temple itself and it is represented by its executive officer appointed under Chapter VI-A of Act 11 of 1927 pursuant to the notification already referred to. The 2nd defendant is the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras, and the 3rd defendant is the State of Madras. The 4th defendant is an association known as the Gowda Saraswath Brahmins Temples Trustees Association, and defendants 5 to 8 are members of the Gowda Saraswath Community, defendants 6 to 8 being trustees of the temple. There was a change in the executive officer of the temple during the pendency of the suit, and the new executive officer was impleaded as the 9th defendant.

(3.) The suit was contested by defendants 1 to 3 with whom the 9th defendant joined after he was impleaded. Defendants 4 to 8 supported the plaintiff.