LAWS(MAD)-1965-2-38

THIRUNEELAKANTA NADAR PONNUNEELA VADIVU NADAR (DIED) AND OTHERS Vs. THIRUNILACANTA NADAR NILAMARTHANDA NADAR (DIED) AND OTHERS

Decided On February 19, 1965
Thiruneelakanta Nadar Ponnuneela Vadivu Nadar (Died) And Others Appellant
V/S
Thirunilacanta Nadar Nilamarthanda Nadar (Died) And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is from the decree of the lower appellate Court which inter alia has granted certain reliefs for injunction in favour of the plaintiffs with reference to a private temple which is the subject matter of the suit. The defendant now represented in the second appeal by his legal representatives objected particularly to the injunction directing the removal of board with a sacred manthra on it front the sanctum sanctorum of the temple and for the demolition of certain new constructions put up with a direction to restore the temple to its original structures. The parties are referred to as they figured in the trial Court. The two plaintiffs and the sole defendant were brothers and sons of one Thiruneelakanta Nadar. This Thiruneelakanta Nadar predeceased his father Karankattan Nadar. The family is a rich and prosperous one in the locality and the evidence is that the plaint property which is a temple in which the family deity Neelaswami is worshipped has been there for over one hundred years, the shrine being within a portion of the family house. Property of considerable value has been set apart for the shrine by this family and Karankattan Nadar was during his lifetime in management of the temple properties and the affairs of the temple. There is no idol as such installed in the temple but there are lamps " Kuthuvilakkus' several of them placed there which burn all through the day and night. These are worshipped with flowers. The evidence shows that after Karankattan Nadar, the defendant had been performing the puja at the shrine and managing the properties of the temple. Anyway there is a document, Ex. A -2 a partition deed in the family evidencing the arrangement by which the defendant was placed in charge of the family temple and its properties. Though in the earlier stages of this litigation the defendant had contested in a rather vague manner the position that it is a private family temple, the matter is not now in dispute before me, as it cannot in view of the recitals in Ex. A -2. The evidence also shows that the defendant was properly and regularly conducting all the functions connected with the shrine and performing the puja devotedly. The complaint of the plaintiffs and the cause of action for the suit are the ceremonious putting up of a board within the shrine with the words "Om Neela Narayana Neman" and addition of certain structures by slight alteration of the existing building thereby providing space for going round (Pradakshinam), the sanctum sanctorum. It is the case of the plaintiffs that by these acts the defendant who had been under a family arrangement placed in charge of the temple and its properties for the family, was varying the nature and character of the institution and that his acts and conducts were likely in the end to change the character of the institution into a public temple.

(2.) The Court of first instance upheld the plea of the plaintiff that the defendant was in possession of the property from Neelaswami, their family deity and that his possession was for the the benefit of the family members. The evidence established that the family members and others whom they chose to permit participated in the feast on Friday and that the members of the family offered puja to the deity. The defendant's position, it was held, was that of a trustee for the family members in respect of the administration of the family temple. However the first Court held that the impugned acts of the defendants were not acts of waste and while granting a declaration that the plaint property was the family property denied the further reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs. The lower appellate Court while observing that the alteration of temple premise's like plastering the floor and putting up new walls may not amount to acts of waste felt that they changed the character of the buildings and that this should not be allowed. With reference to the board containing the sacred manthram " Om Neela Narayana Namah ", the Court held that as there was a ceremonious installation of the Board, Manthra Prathishta it had made a difference. In that view, and as particularly the defendant in the earlier stages bad denied the family character of the temple and asserted that his administration of the temple affairs could not be questioned, the lower appellate Court granted all the reliefs as prayed for in the plaint. An appeal had been preferred to the lower appellate Court by the defendant against the decree granting declaration alone and this naturally got dismissed.

(3.) As stated at the outset there is no serious dispute before me that the shrine or temple is the private temple of the parties and the management of the same by the defendant was under a family arrangement and that the defendant was in the position of a trustee with reference to his management and administration of the shrine. But it is contended for the defendant who was the original appellant before me that the relief of injunction granted cannot be maintained and that the acts of the defendant which were impugned were acts of the defendant bona fide made in the course of the management of the shrine. These acts, it is stated, are in fact meritorious acts adding to the convenience in worship and cannot be considered to be acts of waste or acts in excess of the defendant's powers as trustee and manager of the shrine. For the plaintiffs, it is contended, that the defendant had no absolute rights, to act at his pleasure even in the matter of administration and that he cannot make any substantial alteration with reference to the buildings or in other matters of administration without reference to them. It is argued that today it may be the putting of a board with some sacred manthram on it and prakaram for pradakshinam but tomorrow it may be the installation of an idol in the shrine or a Nandhi or Dwajasthambam. Other paraphernalia of public temples may be brought in and access allowed to the public ultimately leading to the public claiming the temple as a public one.