PURAVIYA GOUNDAN Vs. POONACHI GOUNDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first and the most important question in this appeal is whether the temple to which the suit relates known as the Kamakshi temple situate in the village of Omandur in the Trichinopoly District is a public temple within the meaning of Section 92, Civil Procedure Code or a private temple belonging to the defendant Puraviya Goundan.

(2.) The two plaintiffs who instituted the suit on behalf of the public also belong to the defendant s family. It is an ancient temple and appears to enjoy considerable reputation. At the earliest period of which we have evidence it was more or less of an unpretentious character but it has undoubtedly been expanding and growing in prosperity and fame for the last several generations. It has a number of subsidiary temples and shrines attached to it. The District Gazetteer says that the temple has some claim to architectural beauty and points out, what is an admitted feature of this temple, that it has no image or idol, the goddess Kamakshi like the deity in the great temple at Chidambaram being represented by emptiness or Akasam. It is visited by numerous pilgrims even from other districts on certain festival days such as Pongal and Sivarathri.

(3.) Another notable feature of this institution is the special veneration and sanctity in which the pujari is held by the worshippers. The defendant is the present holder of that office and the evidence together with the decisions in the previous cases in connection with this temple establishes beyond question that the office has always devolved on the eldest male member of the eldest line in the defendant s family. This has been the case ever since we know anything about the institution.