SENGODA GOUNDAR DIED Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was filed for a declaration that the suit property was only a Samadhi and not a religious institution and for permanent injunction. The suit was dismissed and the appeal is against this judgment and decree.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property is called Malaikaruppaswami Temple and is a Samadhi of the forefather of the plaintiff, namely Malaiswami; the said Malaiswamy had spiritual powers and became a Yogi and he had been treating the diseases of the villagers; he was worshipping Muneeswaram and Karuppannaswami; he attained Samadhi and was buried at the foot of Bargur Hills and a samadhi was constructed; subsequently, 'Bali Peetam' was constructed and images of Thavasi and Muni were constructed to guard his Tomb; for identification purposes, it is called 'Malaikaruppaswami Temple' and the Samadhi was treated as a sacred place by offering regular Guru Pooja; and therefore, the said Samadhi is not a religious institution. While so, according to the plaintiff, the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department appointed defendants 4 to 6 as Trustees for the suit Samadhi, treating it as temple and therefore, it had become necessary for a suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

(3.) The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department opposed the relief by filing a written statement inter alia contending that it is factually incorrect to state that the site in dispute is only a Samadhi. According to them, the matter had been concluded against the petitioner in an earlier proceedings initiated as early as in the year 1937 whereby the place was declared as a public temple and in subsequent civil proceedings between the parties in reference to this temple, it was treated as a public religious temple. According to them, the plaintiff has to prove that it is only a Samadhi. They therefore prayed for dismissal of the suit.