THANUMALAYAPERUMAL MUDALIAR Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S. 7 of 1966 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Nagarcoil, appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Judge, who did not agree that the suit temple was a private one, but in whose opinion it was a public temple. The relevant pleadings may be summarised.

(2.) PERIAVEETTU Mudaliars about 1000 years ago founded two siva temples, one at Azhakiapandiapuram and the other at Aloor. The temple at Azhakiapandiapuram is known as Ambalathaduvar temple and the Aloor temple is popularly known as Chera Chola Pandia Mahadevar temple. They were built on the sites belonging to the ancestors of the plaintiffs and were constructed with their private funds. There is no evidence expressly as to dedication, but from time immemorial these temples were recognised as the private temples of the Periaveettu Mudaliar family. It is claimed that the inscription in the Aloor temple, which is the subject matter of this litigation, bears ample proof as to the private nature of the temple. Reliance is placed on a printed book Ex. A.22 written by Tamil Vidwan Chidambara Kuttalam Pillai under the caption of "Moovarasar veerennum aanaar deiva vinavagar Magimai". Contemporary records, but which are ancient are also relied upon to show that the suit temple was built with private funds and was treated as such by the rulers of Travancore, Ex. A.4 of the year 1896 is an order issued in the name of the Dewan. The proceedings obviously were initiated when a complaint was received about its mismanagement by the then trustees. The point, however, is that on the undertaking given by the then trustees to maintain the accounts and look after the temple affairs properly, the complaint was dismissed; but there is a recognition about the status of the temple as a private temple in this document. Long afterwards under Ex. A.12, and in the year 1962, the Palace officer of the Travaneore devaswom refers to the quondam grants given to this temple as a private temple, but makes it clear that on and after the date of issue of Ex. A.18 such grants for all private temples including the suit Aloor temple were discontinued. Ex. A.5 is a copy of the settlement register in Aloor Pakuthy showing that many on the suit properties stood in the name of the then trustees, but for the benefit of the deities installed in the temple. There is no dispute that the temple was built on private land. Ex. A.6 is also incidentally pressed into service, which shows that three strangers also provided properties to the temple, but incidentally recognised that it was a private temple.

(3.) THE question whether an institution or a temple is a public religious institution or a public temple or a private one has been the subject -matter of many decisions of this Court and that of the Supreme Court and it is easy, therefore, at this stage to deduce from them the well set norms, guidelines and principles on which a decision, one way or the other could be rendered on the principal issue in question.