VEDANTHA STHAPANA SABHA NANGANALLUR Vs. COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ADMN DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 7-11-1995 in Appeal No. 240 of 1984 dismissing the appeal thereby confirming the judgment and decree of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengleput, dated 30-11-1982 in O.S. No. 257 of 1981. The plaintiff is the appellant herein.

(2.) The case of the appellant is as under. The appellant-Sabha from out of its collections from the members of the Sabha, founded Sri Lakshmi Nayavadhana Perumal Temple. The Sabha was duly registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and the object of the Sabha is both religious and secular in nature. One of the objects of the Sabha is to construct a temple for the exclusive worship of its members. In or about 1958, the temple in question was constructed on the land donated by one P. S. Srinivasan of St. Thomas Mount and the construction was completed during 1972. The management and the day to day affairs of the temple are being looked after by the Secretary of the Sabha and as such, the Sabha has got every right to manage and maintain the affairs of the temple as its founder cum hereditary trustees.

(3.) The appellant-Sabha filed an application under Section 63(b) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the 2nd respondent for a declaration that the appellant-Sabha is the hereditary trustee of the institution. The 2nd respondent dismissed the said application, which was confirmed by the 1st respondent. As against the rejection of the application under Section 63(b) of the Act, the appellant filed the statutory Suit O.S. No. 157 of 1981 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Chengleput. The respondent defended the suit contending that the suit temple is a public temple constructed out of public collections including collection from the members of the appellant-Sabha and that the temple is one covered under Section 6(20) of the Act. The trial Court rejected the claim of the appellant by holding that the appellant is not entitled to be declared as the hereditary trustee of the suit temple. Aggrieved by that, the appellant preferred A.S. No. 240 of 1984, which was also dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court. Hence the present Letters Patent Appeal by the Sabha.