T V DURAIRAJULU NAIDU Vs. COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant before me. He filed O.S. No. 313 of 1975 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, praying for declaration that the Institution " Sri Ramar Madalayam" is a private institution and not a public one. There has been a further prayer to modify or cancel the order passed by the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board dated 1-11-1974 in A. P. 83 of 1973.

(2.) The allegations as averred in the plaint are as under : - One Veeraswami Naidu, the maternal grandfather of the plaintiff, executed a will dated 26-9-1899 and a codicil dated 4-7-1900. He founded the Private place of worship known as "Sri Ramar Madalayam" in Naciar Koil Road at Woriyur in Tircuchy Town as his own private property. The plaintiff is in management of the same as per the terms of the will. The said Sri Ramar Madalayam is not a religious institution coming within the purview of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (Act 22 of 1959): It is a private endowment belonging to the family of the founder. It was never dedicated to the general public as a place of public worship nor do the general public have any right of worship. No idol was installed by the founder. Only the subsequent trustee installed the picture of Sri Rama in consonance with the name of Sri Ramar Madalayam. Even now, there is no idol. The institution does not answer the definition of 'temple'. There is no dhwajasthambam, prakaram, hundi, kanikkai etc. There is no uthsava idol, nor is there any uthsavam. There is no archaka for performing pooja. The heirs of founder have a right to reside in one of the houses and manage the Madalayam. In addition, the persons to whom the cooked food has to be distributed is not restricted to the followers of the Hindu faith alone. On the other hand, the persons other than Hindus could also be the beneficiaries of the distribution of the cooked food, because the word used in the will is "Desanthrigal".

(3.) The Deputy Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment by his common judgment dated 13-06-1972 in O.A. Nos. 21 and 180 of 1969 on his file rejected the contention of the plaintiffs father that the office of the trusteeship in the suit institution is hereditary. However, the Commissioner in A.P. No. 83 of 1973 has reversed that order. He held that the trusteeship in the suit institution is hereditary. The plaintiff, who was impleaded as a respondent in O.A. Nos. 21 and 180 of 1969 contended that the suit institution is not a religious institution. This contention was overruled by both the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner. It is under these circumstances that the present suit has come to be filed for the above said reliefs.