BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FOR THE HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS Vs. SREEMATHI RUKMINI ALIAS KUNHIKAVU ALIAS KUTHIRAVATTATH KONGASSERI PUTHUKULANGARA AMMA NEETHIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claim in the suit under appeal is similar to the claims in the other suits but the facts are somewhat different. The learned Trial Judge dismissed those other suits because in his opinion Section 7 of the Madras Act II of 1927 was validly enacted by the local legislature and Section 84 gave power to the Board to decide whether a mutt or temple was a public or a private one when a dispute arose with regard to that. In this case, however, he held that the Board had no jurisdiction to control the property of the respondents and granted an injunction restraining the Board from exercising any of the powers conferred on it by the Act or interfering with the respondents management of the properties. The Board has appealed against that decision.

(2.) The facts, quite shortly, are that the temple in question ceased to exist many years ago and that all that now remains of it are its ruins. About this there is no dispute. It is no doubt true that some of the properties are described as Devaswom properties and that probably the income was formerly used by the members of the tarwad for the performance of worship in the temple. The learned Judge was of the opinion that the mere fact that there were these properties the income of which should be devoted to the temple, were there a temple in existence, did not give the Board jurisdiction either to direct the restoration of the temple or to invoke the doctrine of cypres for the purpose of dealing with the income. He held that Section 9, Clause (12) of the Act clearly contemplates a temple in actual existence as a place of public worship and that there was nothing in the Act or in Section 84 giving the Board any jurisdiction to decide the "way in which the income or particular endowments attached to temples, which before the Act came into force ceased to exist as places of public worship, is to be applied.

(3.) On behalf of the Board it is contended that one of the matters to be decided by the Board under Section 84 of the Act is whether an institution is a mutt or a temple as defined in the Act. That is quite true. But on the other side for the respondents it is contended that there must at least be au institution in existence and that, if there is, the Board has jurisdiction to decide whether it is a mutt or a temple as defined in the Act. The definition of a mutt or temple in the Act is contained in Section 9, Clause (12), namely: Temple means a place, by whatever designation known, used as a place of public religious worship and dedicated to, or for the benefit of, or used as of right by, the Hindu community, or any section thereof, as a place of religious worship.