APPUSAMY Vs. A V SUNDARARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIRD defendant in O.S. No. 19 of 1991, who is also the first defendant in O.S. No.362 of 1991, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Sankari, is the appellant in both the second appeals.

(2.) THERE was also another suit filed by the appellant O.S. No.329 of 1988 against the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 19 of 1991. All these three suits were jointly tried and a common judgment was delivered on 29.11.1993. All the suits were dismissed. THERE were three appeals before the lower appellate court as A.S. Nos.10, 11 and 41 of 1994, on the file of District Judge, Salem. A.S. No.41 of 1994 was dismissed, confirming the Judgment of the trial court. The other two appeals were allowed. It is against the judgment in A.S.Nos. 10 and 11 of 1994, these two Second Appeals are filed.

(3.) IN the plaint in O.S. No.19 of 1991, it is said that Arulmigu Angalamman Temple, i.e., the suit temple, was founded by persons exclusively belonging to 24 Manai Telugu Chettiar Community and was managed by that Community by electing members from among themselves for the administration of the same. The suit temple is a religious denomination temple exclusively belonging to the community which is a religious denomination having common faith and common organisation. Arulmigu Angalamman is the Deity of the Community. Expenses for the maintenance of the suit temple and for the conduct of the festival are met by the community from out of the collection from among themselves, and collection is not made from outside the community. It is said that the suit temple is a denominational temple and the community is entitled to the rights and protection guaranteed under Art.26 of the Constitution of INdia. Even Sec.107 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act provides that the provisions of H.R. and C.E. Act are not attracted for denominational temples and it will not affect the rights guaranteed under the Constitution of INdia. Plaintiffs issued a notice under Sec.80 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the defendants asking them not to interfere with the management of the suit temple by "the community. The cause of action is said to be when the defendants interfered with the management of the suit temple and after issue of Sec.80, C.P.C., notice. At the inception of the suit, there were only two defendants, i.e., the Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. and the Assistant Commissioner, H.R. and C.E., Salem. Defendants 3 to 8 got themselves impleaded, and the plaint was subsequently amended as per order in I.A. No.367 of 1992 dated 25.6.1992.