HIS HOLINESS SRI VISHWOTHAMA THIRTHA SWAMIAR OF SODE MUTT, UDIPI, MINOR BY NEXT FRIEND P.S. CHARYA AND ORS. Vs. THE STATE OF MADRAS REPRESENTED BY THE COLLECTOR OF SOUTH KANARA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MY learned brother has dealt with the historical aspect and mythological tradition of the institution in question and I do not propose to traverse the same over again for in my view, how the temple came into existence cannot be ascertained with any degree of exactitude from the mass of material most of which is mythological and is not founded on concrete facts which can be tested in the light of actuality. What we have to ascertain is whether the famous Sri Krishna temple at Udipi which is held in great reverence and sanctity not only by the followers of Madhvachariar throughout the whole of India but by all the pious Hindus, can be held to be a public temple as defined in Sub -section (2) of Section 2 of Act V of 1947. Exhibit B -6 is the plan of Shiyali village which shows that the temple building of Sri Krishna is on the west of Madhva Sarovar, the holy tank, and is approached by a gate from the southern side. Divided by a road from Sri Krishna temple are the temples of Sri Chandramouleswara and Sri Anantheswara which are surrounded on all sides by streets. The Astha mutts are scattered all round these temples, the Sirur mutt being the nearest to the Sri Krishna temple. What is urged before us is that the idol of Sri Krishna is installed in a mutt, the management of which is being carried on by each of the Swamijis of the Ashta mutts for two years in rotation within a period of sixteen years and as such the institution in which the idol of Sri Krishna has been consecrated by Madhvachariar must be held to be the central mutt just like the other eight mutts and that in every matter it should be deemed to be of the same pattern as the other mutts. If that is so, in view of the recent decisions of the Supreme Court in The Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sirur Mutt, (1954) 1 M.L.J. 596 :, (1954) S.C.J. 335 (S.C.), the temple in question will be a denominational institution which cannot be called a public temple. In the District Manual of South Kanara by Mr. Sturrock of the Indian Civil Service we find that this institution is described as a temple of hoary antiquity held in great reverence not only by the disciples of Madhvachariar but also by all the Hindus. In the Judgment in The Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sirur Mutt, (1954) 1 M.L.J. 596 :, (1954) S.C.J. 335 (S.C.), Mukherjea, J., describes this temple as an ancient religious institution known as Shri Krishna Devara Mutt established by Madhvacharya which is supposed to contain an image of God Sri Krishna originally made by Arjuna and miraculously obtained from a vessel wrecked at the coast of Tuluva. His Lordship later on states how the management of this mutt is being carried on by the superiors of the other eight mutts by turns; the custom is that the Swamiji of each of these eight mutts presides over Sri Krishna Mutt in turn for a period of two years in every sixteen years, the appointed time of change in the headship of the Sri Krishna Mutt is called Pariyayam and the Swamiji who takes over the management of the affairs of the mutt is called the Pariyaya Swami for the time being.

(2.) THE contention put forward on behalf of the appellants is that there is no distinction between the abode of Lord Krishna which is the subject -matter of the present dispute and each of the other Ashta mutts in regard to their nature and with respect to the application of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act. If this institution partakes of the same legal characteristics as those of the other mutts, then according to the arguments of learned Counsel for the Appellants the Madras Temple Entry Authorisation Act cannot be made applicable.

(3.) FOR that purpose it is necessary to refer to the provisions of the Madras Act V of 1947 and its amendment by Act XIII of 1949. The Preamble to the Act V of 1947 is as follows: