K CHELLAM PILLAI Vs. PALAVESAM PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs are the appellants herein. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that the plaintiffs' institutions is a denominational institutions and are entitled to protection under Art.26 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The plaintiffs' case is that Vadakoor Aaralvoimozhi is a well defined locality in Aaralvaimozhi hamlet of Thovala Village and Taluk, Kanyakumari District. The vellalas inhabiting in Vadakoor Aralvoimozhi are collection of individuals, having a common faith and are followers of Saivite form of Hindu religion and designated by the distinct name 'Vadakoor Vellala Samudhayam' and this constitutes a denomination by itself. It is stated that the said Vellala Community has got their own peculiar customs and practice in the religious worship of the suit temple. The main deity Sri Nainar Kulasekara Vinayagar is situated in the sanctum sanctorum and in the Ardhamandapam Acharya Vinayagar is situate. Deeparathanai will be done for the main deity in the sanctum sanctorum. There are two Nagars behind Acharya Vinayagar and on the side of the said Ardhavinayagar an idol of Baktha is found. Worship is done to them also. In the Ardhamandapam, a panchaloha Mutharamman deity is found and deeparathanai is done to this deity after deebarathanai is done to the other deities. There is another temple belonging to the Trust. The main deity is Muthuramman. Just in front of the Amman temple, there is an idol for "Ubayan Seravan'. The pooja for Ubayan Seravan will be conducted by Murayan Pillai, a member of the Vellala community and the offerings to this deity will be taken by the poojari. In the month of Karthigai, on each day, each member of the Vellala community would conduct special (Chirappu) pooja and on the last day of Karthigai if it falls on Tuesday or on the first Tuesday,of Markali 'Vilakku Polivu' function will be conducted and the expenses were met exclusively by the members of the Vellala Community. The temple will be closed in the event of death of a member of the Community and there will be a special function called 'Neermalai' by which garland will be given from the temple. Pooja will be done only after the removal of the body. Special function will be held at the time of the marriage of any member of the Vellala Community and Rs.3/- will be collected for the Trust from the bridegroom. According to the plaintiffs, these institutions are religious denominational institutions and are entitled to acquire properties and to manage them by their chosen representatives and administer them un interfered with by any one. According to them, this right is guaranteed to them under Art.26 of the Constitution of India. It is stated that the plaintiffs are chosen representatives of the denomination and were duly elected on 15.3.1970. The first plaintiff is the Managing Trustee and others are members of the Trust Board. They were elected for five years. The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department has no right to appoint trustees to the plaintiff-temple under S.49 and 47 of the Act. But the 4th Respondent, Asst. Commissioner, HR & CE Suchindram. has chosen to appoint defendants 1 to 3 as trustees to the suit temple and he has no power to do so. Notice under Section 80 CPC was issued. Plaintiffs gave a petition to the Commissioner, HR & CE Board, and the order of the Asst. Commissioner was stayed. HR & CE department has no right to interfere with the administration of the temples run by the plaintiffs community as it is a denominational religious institution and therefore, the plaintiffs sought for a declaration of such right.

(3.) The defendants 1 to 3 filed a common written statement wherein they have stated that the first plaintiff was appointed as fit person by the 4th respondent in July 1965 for a period of five years to function in the Board of Trustees on the application submitted by the first plaintiff to the fourth respondent on 5.5.1965 and thereby, he was subjected to the jurisdiction of the fourth respondent over the suit institution by submitting periodical returns and other statements to the fourth respondent and he was functioning as a fit person as per the orders of the fourth respondent. The suit institution was being administered as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act (Act 22 of 1959) and the rules framed thereunder. The suit institution is under direct control of the fourth respondent. Sri Nainar Kulasekara Vinayagar temple is the suit temple and the properties are standing in the names of deities. The H R & C E department has control over the same. The plaintiffs are not the chosen representatives of the plaintiff institution and they were never elected by the members of the plaintiff institution either on 15.3.1970 or on any other subsequent date. The first plaintiff is not the Managing Trustee of the plaint institution; nor the plaintiffs 2 to 5 are the trustees. The plaintiffs are not entitled to function as trustees. On the other hand, the fourth respondent is entitled to have the administrative power over the plaintiffs' institution. The Asst. Commissioner, HR & CE Department, the fourth respondent, has got power to appoint trustees under the provisions of Section 49 read with 47 of the Act. It is further stated that the fourth respondent called for applications for appointment as trustees after issuing proper notice in accordance with the HR & CE Rules and Regulations and the plaintiffs also applied for such appointment of trustees. The defendants 1 to 3 also made applications for appointment as trustees before the 4th respondent. After due enquiry, and after taking into consideration of the relevant merits of the applications, the fourth respondent by his order dated 31.3.1970 appointed the defendants 1 to 3 as trustees. The defendants 1 to 3 as per the direction of the fourth respondent in a special meeting convened by the Inspector of HR & CE Department, elected the first defendant as the Chairman of the Board of Trustees and the same was also approved by the fourth respondent. The majority of the members of the Vellala Samudhayam of the plaintiff institution is supporting their appointments. The defendants 1 to 3 alone are entitled to administer the plaintiff institution. The terms of the office of the first plaintiff had expired on 26.7.1970 and thereafter, none of the plaintiffs have got any right to function as trustees of the plaintiff institution. It is also stated that the first plaintiff is not competent to function as trustee as he was convicted in a criminal case in CC No.34/1970. The first plaintiff having functioned as fit person under the orders of the fourth respondent and having submitted to the jurisdiction of the fourth respondent, now he is estopped from questioning the authority and power of the fourth respondent in appointing the defendants 1 to 3 as trustees. According to them, the order of the fourth respondent is valid.