(1.) Plaintiffs filed the suit in a representative capacity praying for a declaration that Sri Muthu Vinayagar Temple situated in Muthukrishnapuram at Krishnapuram, Kadayanallur is a denominational temple belonging to Senaikulathavar community people of Muthukrishnapuram and for a permanent injunction. Though the suit was decreed by the trial court, the said judgment and decree was reversed by the Subcourt. The second appeal is against this judgment.
(2.) The facts of the case are stated here under: The plaintiffs claim that they belong to a particular community called Senaikulathavar community residing at Muthukrishnapuram. The forefathers of their community people have established a temple called Sri Muthu Vinayagar Temple. According to the plaintiffs, there are 850 families of Senaikulathavar community people in the village and they are the only worshippers of the temple and that they are managing and maintaining the temple by themselves. The properties were purchased by the temple by the community for the temple. According to them, even though they belong to Senaithalaivar community, they are called and are known as Senaikulathavar community and they are considered to be superior to Senaithalaivar community. It is stated that they constitute a religious denomination and that Muthu Vinayagar is their Kula Deivam. In reference to their peculiar form of religious belief and worship, they have stated in paragraph 8 of the plaint as follows :
(3.) Plaintiffs examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 and filed documents Ex. A. 1. to A.8. On behalf of the Department, D.W. 1 was examined and also report Ex. P. 1 was submitted. The trial court found that the suit temple is a denominational temple belonging to the plaintiffs' community exclusively and granted the injunction. The appellate court reversed this finding. In the course of the judgment, the Subcourt referred to the criteria laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgment in S.P. Mitral & others v. Union of India & others, which is as follows "The term religious denomination must satisfy the following three conditions- (1) it must be a collection of individuals who have a system of beliefs or doctrines which they regard as conclusive to their spiritual well being, i.e. a common faith; (2) a common organisation; and (3) designation by a distinctive name In that case, it was contended that the followers of Sri Aurobindo satisfy the aforesaid three conditions and therefore, they constitute a religious denomination. It was further pointed out that the followers of Ramanuja, the followers of Madhavachariar and the followers of other religious teachers were held to be a religious denomination. On the strength of these, it was contended that Sri Aurobindo was also a religious leader and therefore, the followers of Aurobindo share a common faith and organisation have a distinctive name and constitute a religious denomination. Their lordships approved the view of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Nadan Ramalingaiah v.H.R. & C.E. wherein it was held that to hold that there exists a religious denomination, there must exist a religious sect or a body having a common faith and organisation and designated by a distinctive name. Of course, any sect or sub-sect professing certain religious cult having common faith and common spiritual organisation such as Vaishnavites, Madhavites and Saivites may be termed as religious denomination. but certainly not any caste, sub-caste or any sect of religious community who worship mainly a Hindu deity or God. The Madras High Court, in Assistant Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Salem v, Nattamai K.S. Ellappa Mudaliar & others, held that Senguntha Mudaliar community of Tharamangalam cannot claim to be a religious denomination. It was found that they have no common religious tenets peculiar to those other than which are common to the entire Hindu community. Their claim that they have a common faith peculiar to Senguntha Mudaliar community of Tharamangalam by worshipping a peculiar idol known as Kannanur Mariamman was not accepted.