LAWS(MAD)-1980-11-15

KANNIKAPARAMESWARI DEVASTHANAM AMMAPET Vs. SALEM MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

Decided On November 10, 1980
SREE KANNIKAPARAMESWARI DEVASTHANAM, AMMAPET, BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE A. VISWANATHAN CHETTY Appellant
V/S
SALEM MUNICIPAL COUNCIL BY ITS COMMISSIONER, SALEM, MUNICIPALITY, SALEM-1 Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in O.S. No. 589 of 1975 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Salem, is the appellant in this second appeal. THE respondent is the defendant in the said suit. THE plaintiff laid the suit to declare that the levy of property-tax for the suit temple under assessment No. 26262 is illegal and opposed to the provisions of section 83 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act V of 1920 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant and its subordinates from collecting the property tax levied under the aforessaid assessment. THE Principal District Munsif, on an appraisal of the materials produced by the parties and the questions involved, found a justification for countenancing the case of the plaintiff and he decreed the suit as prayed for. THE defendant preferred an appeal A.S.No.199 of 1976 which was heard and disposed of by the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem and the lower appellate Court took a different view from that of the first Court and non-suited the plaintiff. THE present second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court.

(2.) TWO questions come up for consideration in this second appeal: one is, whether the suit temple will fall within the category contemplated under section 83 (1) (a) of the Act secondly, whether the suit is barred under section 354 of the Act. Though the second question has not been formulated for consideration at the time of admission of the second appeal. I am satisfied that the case involves such a question and without giving a decision on this question, the rights of the parties as agitated by them in the Courts below will not stand comprehensively adjudicated. Hence I permitted the learned counsel for the appelant to make submissions on the second question also.

(3.) I am in respectful agreement with the above ratio of the Bench of this Court. Arya Vysya community people of Ammapet in the instant case do form a part of the Hindu community at large. It is not disputed before me that they constitute a considerable section of the Hindu public. Merely because the place set apart for worship is being used by a particular section of the public, it will not cease to be a place set apart for public worship within the meaning of section 83 (1) (a) of the Act. A temple being owned by a particular community, the conduct of the festivals by that community and the management of the temple by that community, may not by themselves be relevant factors to hold that the said temple is not a place set a part for public worship within the meaning of section 83 (1) (a) of the Act. Mr. R. Subbaraj, learned counsel for the respondent Would refer to the dictum in Henning v. Church of Jesus Christ1There Mormon Temple was held not to be exempt from the rates under section 7 (2) of the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act,1955 because it was not a place of public religious worship which meant public as distinct from private worship, but by reason of the restrictions on entry was a sanctuary of a private nature for Mormons of good standing for the sacred observances and rites that took place there. In the instant case, nothing has been brought out in evidence that apart from the ownership claimed by the particular community, there is any restriction with reference to the worship at the said temple by the rest of the public. As pointed out earlier, Exhibit A-21 categorically avers that during occasions of festival, the deity will be kept for the worship of the public. On the facts of the case, it is unnecessary to consider the ratio of this English decision and express any opinion whether any restrictions imposed with reference to worship by the rest of the public will take away the character of the suit temple from being a place set apart for public worship. Hence I have to hold that the exemption claimed under section 83 (1) (a) of the Act is tenable and will have to be upheld.