SRI CHIDAMBARESWARA SIVAGAMI AMBIGAI TEMPLE BY THEIR MANAGING TRUSTEE S.V.R.A. NALLAKARUPPAN CHETTIAR Vs. THE COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals were heard together, because the points of law that arise in them are substantially similar. They are directed against the judgments and decrees of the learned Subordinate Judge, Pudukottai in O.S. 7 of 1960 and O.S. 48 of 1959 respectively. The plaintiff is the appellant. App. No. 272 of 1961 : In the suit O.S. No. 7 of 1960 to which this appeal relates the managing trustee of a Siva temple at Nachandupatti in the former Pudukottai State is the plaintiff and his prayer is to set aside the order of the respondent, the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras, declaring the suit temple to be a public temple. There is also a prayer in the alternative for declaring the Karaikars of seven Karais as the hereditary trustees of the suit temple. The contentions the plaintiff were briefly the following: Certain Nattukottai Chettiar families, 50 in number, who were Saivites by faith, founded the suit temple and brought a Sivalingam from Chidambaram and installed it therein. Subsequently, they renovated the temple at great cost. The temple is the exclusive private temple of these Nattukottai Chettiar families residing in Nachanduppati, and the members of other communities do not worship in the temple as of right. They could worship only with the consent of the aforesaid families. The said families belong to 5 out of 9 temple clans into which the Nattukottai Chettiar community are divided. The defendant Board denied the the allegations. It contended that in any event, Nattukottai Chettiars of the Nachandupatti formed a Sec. of the Hindu Community, and therefore, a temple founded for their benefit, would fall within the definition of "Public temple" in S. 6(17) of Act XIX of 1951 (hereinafter called the Act) which corresponds to S. 6 (25) of Act XXII or 1959.

(2.) The learned Subordinate Judge found that there was no proper evidence to show that the 50 families of Nattukottai Chettiars founded the suit temple. The evidence before the learned Subordinate Judge showed that not merely Nattukkottai Chettiars belonging to 5 out the 9 temple clans residing in Nachandupatti had a right to worship, but Nattukottai Chettiars of the aforesaid 5 temple clans even from outside the village could worship in the temple as of right. That would suffice, in the view of the learned Subordinate Judge, the conclusion that the temple is a public one. There was also oral evidence that members of the Brahmin community also were allowed to worship in the temple without any let or hindrance, and according to the lower Court they would go against the plaintiff's contention about the temple being private. The learned Subordinate Judge, thereafter found that the temple was a public temple. He also rejected the contention put forward by the plaintiff that the Nattukottai Chettiars of Nachandupatti formed a religious denomination and as such they could invoke Art. 26 of the Constitution in their favour. The suit was dismissed with costs. The plaintiff appeals from the above decision.

(3.) The point for determination in this appeal is whether the suit temple is a private one as claimed by the plaintiff.