BAGYALAKSHMI AMMAL Vs. SRINIVASA REDDIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition arises out of the order of the learned Second Additional Subordinate Judge of Mathurai in an application made by the plaintiff, under O. 11, Rule 18(2) and S. 151 C.P.C. and also Rules 63 and 64 of the Civil Rules of Practice.

(2.) The petition was filed by the plaintiff for inspection of the documents and accounts filed by the respondent in court before the trial of the suit began. The suit in respect of which this application by the plaintiff was made was one for setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board, and to declare that the plaint temple was a public temple. The suit was opposed by the fourth defendant, among others, on the ground that the temple in question was a private temple. After the written statement was filed by the defendants, including the 4th defendant, who is the petitioner in this revision, a reply statement was also filed by the plaintiff. In the written statement of the 4th defendant, the petitioner, it as pleaded inter alia that the plaintiff was not a worshipper of the suit temple, that he was not connected in any manner with its affairs and had no right of worship in the temple and, therefore, was not entitled to maintain the suit, or to claim any relief. It was also contended that the plaintiff was a resident of another village 9 miles away from the village, where the suit temple was situated, and that the suit itself had been filed out of spite and malice due to bitter enmity between the plaintiff and the fourth defendant. It was further pleaded by the fourth defendant, that the suit was barred by S. 103 of Madras Act XIX of 1951, and was not maintainable in view of the prior decisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board in O. S. No. 432 of 1950, declaring that the suit temple was a private temple. The fourth defendant also contended that the temple was never dedicated to the public, and that the public did not worship there, and that it was intended for the members of the defendant's family purely as a private temple. A further plea was that the temple had been built as a private temple, and mentioned in the deed of partition in the family, dated 7th July 1902, that the public did not contribute anything either in the shape of money or labour for the construction of the temple, and that on the other hand it was constructed with the funds of the family. It is not necessary to go into all the very elaborate allegations and the pleas set up in the written statement of the 4th defendant, which runs upto 15 paragraphs covering about 11 typed foolscap pages.

(3.) After the reply statement was filed by the plaintiff, issues were settled on 29th November 1954. Two weeks time was given for filing of documents, and 12th January 1955 was appointed for the trial of the suit.