VENKATACHALA MUDALIAR Vs. SAMBASIVA MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises a novel and interesting question. The plaintiff's suit is for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants and other villagers of Parniputtur from pulling down an old temple in the place and removing the image from the present premises. Both the Lower Courts have dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that almost the whole village was for the removal of the temple and the image to a site more sanitary and more acceptable to the inhabitants. The plaintiff has preferred this second appeal. As the point is one of some importance and as there is no direct authority on the point, I asked Mr. N. Rajagopalachari, High Court Vakil, to appear as amicus curiae for the idol.

(2.) The plaintiff's case is that there is an old temple dedicated to Vinayagar, that there is now a consecrated image in it, that the defendants and other inhabitants of the village are now attempting to pull down the temple and remove the stone image from the consecrated Moolasthanam to a new temple to be built on a site selected by them and that it will be an act of sacrilege to remove a consecrated image from the place where it has been installed to a new place and such act if permitted would bring untold misery to the inhabitants. The defendants plea is that the temple was in a dilapidated condition, that the site became insanitary, that all the villagers agreed at a meeting that a new temple on a more suitable site should be built, that a site was acquired, that they are building a new temple and that the plaintiff is a creature of one Namasivaya Mudali, an old Dhar-makartha of the temple, who, though a party to the arrangement of building a new temple,has,in order to spite the villagers, set up the plaintiff to bring this vexatious suit. Both the Lower Courts have found that a very large majority of the villagers are for building a new temple and installing the idol in it. The learned District Judge has recorded a distinct finding that the removal of the temple was decided upon at a general meeting of the villagers duly convened, and further the decision was unanimous and that Namasivaya Mudali was himself a party to the resolution and the plaintiff who is only a substitute cannot question it.

(3.) This finding is supported by the evidence on record, and it is binding upon this Court. The only question therefore is whether the whole body of the villagers who worship in a temple can build another temple and remove the idol from the old temple to the new temple. It is admitted that the site of the old temple has become insanitary as water collects all round it and it is very near the roadway.