THE COIMBATORE SRI ELLAICHANDU CHETTIMAI VINAYAKAR KOIL, BY CHETTIMAI C. NANJAPPA CHETTIAR Vs. THE COMMISSIONER, H.R. AND C.E., FORMERLY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONER FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against the judgment of our learned brother Ramakrishnan J., in A. S. 27of 1959. The dispute relates to the Ellaichandu Chettimai Vinayakar koil in Coimbatore. A petition was filed under S. 84, of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act for declaring it to be a private temple. This petition was dismissed by the Board on the ground that it was a temple within the purview of S. 9 (12) of the Act. The aggrieved party presented a petition under S. 84 (2) and (3) of the Act (Act II of 1927) as amended by Act X of 1946 to set aside that order. Being of the opinion that the institution in question was a temple within the definition of S. 9 (12) of the Act, the District Judge, Coimbatore, dismissed that petition. It is this judgment that was challenged in App 27 of 1959. Concurring in the conclusion of the trial Court as to the character of the temple, Ramakrishnan J., dismissed the appeal. It is this view of the learned Judge that is under challenge in this Letters Patent Appeal. The contention raised by learned Counsel for the appellant is that there are no features in this case which would justify the conclusion of the Courts below that the temple in question is governed by S. 9 (12) of the Act. Before we deal with the soundness of this contention it is convenient to state briefly the facts which led to this appeal.

(2.) The temple in question was founded by Nanjappa Chetti and Pillaru Chetti, the ancestors of the appellant, some time prior to 1886. In the year 1886 there was a partition in that family at which the management of this temple and its properties were entrusted to one of the members of that family, Peria Nanjappa Chetti. He was required to perform the kattalais as usual. Some time later, under the terms of the Dharmasasanam deed dated 17th April 1902, a registration copy of which is marked as Ex. A. 4, the management of the temple was committed to eleven persons who were said to be interested in the institution. These persons were to administer the affairs of the institution and its properties subject to the supervision of the concerned Chettimai and his lineal descendants. It appears from that document that the properties, the income from which was being utilised for the expenses of the temple, constituted the endowments of the institution. Nothing was heard of this institution till we come to 1949, when O. A. 22 of 1949, giving rise to this Letters Patent Appeal, was presented before the Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras, for the relief mentioned above.

(3.) The contention that the institution is not a temple within the ambit of S. 9 (12) of the Act is once again sought to be sustained here. The argument presented by Sri Venkatarama Aiyar, learned Counsel for the appellant, is that as the temple was founded for the benefit of 60 families attached to the religious headship of the appellant Chettimai the temple should be excluded from the purview of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act. As supporting this proposition reliance is placed on a passage in Lewin on Trusts occurring at page 15 :