MURARI NADU Vs. SRINIVASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the appeals are preferred against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram made in O. S. No. 15 of 1997 dated 5.12.2002.

(2.) FOLLOWING are the allegations in short available in the plaint: 2(a) There is a private temple belonging to the petitioner's family called Arulmighu Bhuvaneswari Ellai Amman Temple situate at Mel Bhuvanagiri Village, Chidambaram. The said private temple was constructed by the ancestors of the plaintiff. It has no property of its own except the temple site, occupied Grama Natham. From time immemorial, patta was not granted to anybody, by the Government, as the entire village, with all houses, building etc., are in Natham. The property in which the temple and the house are constructed by the Forefathers of the plaintiff and they enjoyed it as their own. 2(b) The private temple was managed by Logappa Naidu in or about 1870, and after his life time, his son Kuppuswamy Naidu managed the same. After him, his son Pakkiriswamy Naidu continued to manage the administration of his family temple till he breathed his last. After Pakiriswamy Naidu's death, his son Krishnaswamy Naidu, the father of the Plaintiff succeeded to the management of his family private temple as his eldest son, like his fore-fathers who have succeeded to the management of the temple in line of succession till 1984. Thereafter, the plaintiff succeeded to the management of the private temple as the eldest son of his family and has been in effective control and management till date without any third party's interference either by the Government or by the defendants. Not only the management of the Temple, but the performance of poojas, worship etc., have been done only by the plaintiff and his ancestors. No one ever interfered in the past for over a century and more. The private nature of the institution within the family of the plaintiff for over five generations uninterruptedly, was asserted, accepted and recognized by the public. 2(c) The father of plaintiff Krishnaswamy Naidu, working as a constable in Bhuvanagiri Police Station was not only an ardent worshipper of his family deity Bhuvaneswari Amman but also used to cure ailments of the public who were living in and around Bhuvanagiri by his enormous acute supernatural powers. He was leading an ascetic life. Most of the Time, he used to be in "Yoga Nillai" before his family Goddess, Bhuvaneswari Ellai Amman. Devotees who used to come to have darshan of him, and for getting ailments cured by his "Yoga Nillai" in turn, used to donate liberally as a holy offerings (Pathakanikkai) to him even without himself asking any money from them. Bhuvaneswari Swamigal used to be in most of the times in "Yoga Nillai" before the Amman. The pathakanikkai poured to Krishnaswamy by his devotees was used by him for reconstructing his private family temple, as he always believed, that he was blessed by the Goddess with such powers to cure and help the poor and other people. The temple which was in a highly dilapidated condition, drew his attention, and he decided to reconstruct it. 2(d) He started the work of demolishing the entire old structure and put up a new construction which he did spreading over a period of 25 years in slow stages. Unfortunately, he died on 26.1.1984 without completing the construction and performing kumbabishekam and he was succeeded by his son, the plaintiff herein who followed his father's footsteps in the matter of attaining "Gnanathirushty" and attaining "Yoga Nillai" and curing ailments by his power. He also completed his family Temple construction and performed kumbabishekam on 21.6.1989. The plaintiff's father constructed a dwelling house very near to the private temple and got E.B. Connection, living there till he breathed his last. 2(e) Around the temple there is a compound wall erected by the plaintiff and the Temple is under the lock and key of the plaintiff. The temple is being managed and poojas performed by him. After the demise of the said Bhuvaneswari Swamigal, his mortal remains were interned and a Samadhi was erected on it by the plaintiff within the premises, adjoining the temple to the knowledge of all the public of Bhuvanagiri and the plaintiff's family people are worshipping the samadhi, performing Guru Pooja to it. No Hundi has been kept in the temple. No collection has been made for day to day maintenance and upkeep of the temple. The temple has no Rajagopuram, Dwajasthambam,Praharam,Belletc., etc., nor utchavas being performed which are the ordinary features of a public Temple. In fact, it lacks all the ingredients of public Temple. Even daily poojas are not being performed as per Agamasastras. 2(f) On 7.9.1968, the plaintiff's father executed a settlement deed in favour of his son wherein the private character of the institution has been well brought out. The plaintiff's father has in fact mortgaged his personal property and raised funds for the construction of the New Temple. 2(g) The caste men of the plaintiff who were the staunch devotees of his father, got jealous of the plaintiff who followed the footsteps of his father in his early lifehood of 20 (twenty) and got Yoga Nillai or Gnana Thirushti and thereby, rose to fame, began to create problem and trouble to him. So they instigated defendants 1 to 3 and others to file an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Myladuthurai in O.A. 80 of 1989 under Section 64(1) of Act 22(1959) as if the institution is denominational in character belonging to Naidu community people and sought for an order of appointment of a Fit person for the Temple behind the lack of the plaintiff. Coming to know about it he preferred an appeal to the commissioner and got a stay of the operation of the said order. The plaintiff as per legal advise moved an application under Section 63(a) of Act 22 of 1959, with the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowments Department, Mayiladuthurai in O. A. No. 4 of 1990, seeking a declaration that the institution in question is not a religious institution as per the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable and Endowments Act. The defendants 1-3 of course got themselves impleaded as partly respondents in the said application. The Deputy Commissioner allowed the application of the plaintiff, declaring that the suit temple is not religious institution as per the provisions of the Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowments Act 22 of 1959. 2(h) Aggrieved over that order, the defendants preferred an appeal to the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowements Department, Chennai, in A.P. No. 9 of 1996 and the Commissioner on 11.10.1996 allowed the appeal of the Defendants and declared that the suit temple is a religious institution as per Section 6(18) and 6(20) of Act of 22 (1959). Hence the plaintiff is now constrained to file this suit questioning the legality, validity, propriety of the order of the 4th defendant, the Commissioner, passed in AP 9 of 1996 dated 11.10.1996, before the Honourable Court.

(3.) THE contents contained in the written statement filed by the Commissioner of H.R. & C.E., the 4th defendant are as follows: 4(a) Most of the allegations contained in the plaint are all after thought and they were not stated in the main O.A., that it is false that the suit temple is a private temple belonging to the plaintiffs family and the same was constructed by their ancestors, that the alleged documents of 1865 and 1871 are not valid nor will they confer any right or interest on the plaintiff in respect of the suit temple, that the documents are fabricated for the purpose of the case, that no details as to who constructed the temple and when the temple was constructed are given and that the plaintiff's father has admitted in earlier civil suit proceedings that the temple had been in existence from time immemorial and was constructed during the period of Pallava Kingdom. 4(b) The plaintiff has not mentioned anything in the main O.A. No. 4 of 1990, that the plaintiff's father has admitted in the earlier proceedings that the pooja in the temple was done by engaging a poojari, that the temple is a public temple and the very name of the temple, its location, the existence of karpagraham, Dome, Kalasam, Palipeedam, Arthamandapa, Nagar Pradishtai and Neem tree in praharam will clearly show the public nature of the temple, that merely because the plaintiff's father was called as Bhuvaneswari Swamigal and his statue is kept in the front will not confer any ownership of the temple to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff's father had obtained donations from the public in large sum of money under the guise of renovation of the temple and also for the Thiruppani and Kumbabhishekam. 4(c) The Thiruppani work was done with the public money, that the kumbabhishekam was conducted by the public at large and the worshipping public gathered at large and participated on their volition and accord, that the compound wall of the rest house were constructed only when the Thiruppani work was done and it will not render the plae as his private premises, that the alleged Samathi of the plaintiff's father is outside the praharam and compound wall and it is not inside the temple and that it being a small temple there is no Rajagopuram and Dwajasthambam. 4(d) The alleged settlement deed by the plaintiff's father is a concocted document and it will not affect the right of the temple or convert the nature of the temple into a private one, that the mere reading of the document and the way in which it is written and registered, will clearly establish how the plaintiff s father during his later period wanted to grab at the temple property and shifted his stand taken in the civil suit, that the order of the Commissioner is based on the material documents, evidence and on the principles of law and that the suit filed without notice under Section 80 C.P.C. is not maintainable and that the suit may be dismissed with costs.