LAWS(MAD)-1997-3-38

COMMISSIONER H R AND C E ADMN DEPARTMENT MADRAS Vs. ANNAKAVADI SAMADHI MADAM SITUATED IN CHATRAM KARUPPUR KUMBAKONAM TALUK

Decided On March 20, 1997
COMMISSIONER, H.R. AND C.E. (ADMN.) DEPARTMENT, MADRAS Appellant
V/S
SRI ANNAKAVADI SAMADHI MADAM SITUATED IN CHATRAM, KARUPPUR KUMBAKONAM TALUK, REPRESENTED BY ITS HEREDITARY MANAGING TRUSTEE, K. PAKKIRISWAMI NAIDU, KUMBAKONAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.474 of 1983 dated 27.10.1994 reversing the judgment and decree in O.S.No. 105 of 1978 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Kumbakonam. The only question arises before us is as to whether the institution is one falling within the purview of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The trial court held that the institution in question is a religious institution falling under Sec.6(13) and (18) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. Before the Subordinate Judge Exs.A-1 to A.14 were marked on the side of the plaintiffs and Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked on the side of the defendants. Pakkiriswami Naidu, the plaintiff has examined himself as P.W.1 and the Department examined its Inspector by name Gangadharan as D.W.I. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, the plaintiff preferred A.S.No.474 of 1983. Learned single Judge on consideration of the entire evidence on record came to the conclusion that the plaintiff institution will not come under the definition of Madam and therefore, set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner as confirmed by the Commissioner. The correctness of the Judgment and decree dated 27.10.1994 is challenged in this appeal by the department.

(2.) MR.Elango. learned Government Advocate reiterated the arguments advanced before the Lower Court and also before the learned single Judge and contended that the plaintiff institution does not come under the definition of Sec.6(13) and (18) of the Act and he also drew our attention to the evidence of P.W.1 and D. W. 1 and also the documents filed in this case. The evidence of P.W.1 is very clear. It is the evidence of P. W. 1 that the public do not come to the Samathi and maintain the same. There is no collection from the public and even during Guru pooja days public do not participate in the poojas and only from the income from the coconut thope, the poojas were conducted to the samadhis. During cross-examination, he would reiterate that there is no meditation in the Samathi. The evidence of P.W.I thus, disclose that except the trustee mentioned in the settlement deed under Ex.A-2, there is nothing to indicate that it is a religious institution. The Temple Inspector was examined as D.W.1 His evidence would only corroborate the evidence of P.W. 1. In this cross-examination, he would say that he has visited the property only once in 1981. It is also admitted by him that he has not obtained any statement from any public even though, he has examined them orally and he could not give the names of the persons who were examined by him. It is his evidence that public do not come and offer worship in the property in question. As already seen, the evidence of P. W. 1 is very clear in that it is stated that only the trustees mentioned in the settlement deed and their heirs were only performing poojas and the expenses for that are borne from the income from the property. Except the fact that poojas are performed for the Samathi in the said property by the persons mentioned in the settlement deed, there is nothing to indicate that any other person has any right over the institution in question. The ingredients of Sec.6(13) and (18) is not attracted in the instant case. The institution in question admittedly is not presided over by a person. There is also no line of succession to whose office it devolves in accordance with the direction of the founder of the institution. It is also not regulated by usuage. The trustees are also not engaging themselves in imparting religious instructions or rendering spiritual service. They do not claim to have exercised spiritual headship over a body of disciples. Learned single judge has also found that no person is presiding over a institution and succession to the office of the trustees has been under Ex.A-2 by the parties to the settlement and it is not a line of succession which was directed to be followed by the founder of the institution viz., Maruthappa Desigar. We are, therefore, of the view that the institution in question is not a religious institution falling under the definition of Sec.6(13) and (18) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Act. No other points were argued before us. The Appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. No costs.