N.K.S. SANKARAKUMARA NADAR AND ORS. Vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiff, whose suit has been dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Tirunelveli. The plaintiffs filed the suit in a representative capacity under Order I, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure for a declaration that a particular temple in their village, Sivagurunathapuram, belongs exclusively to the community of the plaintiffs residing in that village, namely, Hindu Nadars, and that it is a denominational temple within the meaning of Article 26 of the Constitution of India. The suit was necessitated by the fact that the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department (defendant in the suit) was trying to interfere with the management of the temple by the plaintiffs and was seeking to appoint some trustees. The plaintiffs contend that the defendant is not entitled to interfere with their management and they seek the necessary declaration and injunction.

(2.) THE defendant filed a written statement disputing the claim of the plaintiffs that the temple was a denominational temple. They further contended that, even if it was a denominational temple, they were entitled to exercise supervisory control. An enquiry was pending under Section 49 of the Act (1959) and it was contended that, because the enquiry was still pending, the suit was premature No other contention was specifically raised that the suit was not maintainable under any of the provisions of the Act. But at a later stage, on 23rd January, 1969, an issue was framed, apparently on the oral submission of the defendant, to the following effect: Whether the suit as framed is maintainable by virtue of the provisions of Act XXII of 1959? The other five issues which had already been framed were these:

(3.) EVIDENCE was adduced on issues 1 and 2, and second plaintiff was examined as P.W. 1. A number of documents were marked on the side of the plaintiffs. The defendant did not mark any document and did not adduce any oral evidence. The second plaintiff's evidence was to the effect that the temple belonged to the religious denomination called Sivagurunathapuram Hindu Nadars, that it was an ancient temple, that other communities had no right or interest in the said temple and that similarly people from other places too had no right or interest in the temple. He swore that he management of the temple was exclusively with Hindu Nadars from ancient times and that the trustees were elected unanimously by the Hindu Nadars of Sivagurunathapuram. The cross -examination did not really shake the above evidence. The learned Judge (Thiru D.S. Alexander), who tried the suit, accepted this evidence and recorded the following findings on issues 1 and 2: Under the issues it is found that the Muppidathi Amman Temple of Sivagurunathapuram, hamlet of Surandai village, belongs exclusively to the Hindu Nadars of Sivagurunathapuram village, who constitute a section of the public, and hence it is a public temple. But, it does not belong to other community people and people of other places. The issues are accordingly found. He then went on to discuss additional issue 1 framed on 23rd January, 1969 and observed: In view of the discussion and finding on issue 1, it follows that the suit temple is a public temple belonging exclusively to the Sivagurunathapuram Hindu Nadars, who constitute a section of the public. Therefore, the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, XXII of 1959, applies to the institution in question. The remedy of the plaintiffs is to exhaust the remedies provided for under the Madras Act XXII of 1959, and then approach the civil Court. In Santhanagopala Chettiar v. Seetharama Chettiar : (1968)2MLJ41, it has been held that, when the applicability of the provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 to a temple is challenged, the Deputy Commissioner has jurisdiction to decide that question under Section 63 (a) of the Act and consequently a suit filed in a civil Court claiming certain reliefs on the basis that provisions of the Act do not apply to the suit temple and as such is outside the purview of the Act would be barred by Section 63 (a) read with Section 108 of the Act. The claim of the plaintiffs is that the provisions of the Act do not apply to the temple in question and this claim could be decided by the Deputy Commissioner and, therefore, this suit is not maintainable. The issue is accordingly found.