Supreme Court of India
G. JAYALAKSHMI & ORSversusARULMIGHU PAZKHIKANCHIYA VINAYAGAR & ITS TEMPLE
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 955
- Decided
- 28 July 2009
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- S B SINHA
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the nature of the suit property and the temple property are different and that a factual determination is required to ascertain the suit property's status, leading to the remand of the case for fresh consideration.
Summary
The Supreme Court examined a dispute over whether a shop property belonged to a public temple or to private parties. The temple had previously been declared a public temple in earlier litigation, but the nature of the disputed property was unclear. The Court held that the character of the temple property and the shop property are distinct and that a factual inquiry is required to determine if the shop forms part of the temple's assets, especially whether it lies on public land. Relying solely on earlier observations without such fact-finding was improper. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remitted the matter to the High Court for a fresh determination. The appeal was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the temple qualifies as a public temple under the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.
- Whether the suit property (shop) forms part of the temple's assets and is therefore subject to the temple's public status.
- Whether the suit property is situated on public land akin to the temple land.
- Whether the High Court erred by deciding the appeal without a detailed factual finding on the nature and character of the land.
Legislation cited
- Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959s. 6(18), s. 6(20), s. 63(b), s. 70
Subjects
public templeprivate templeproperty disputedeclaration of temple statuspermanent injunctionHindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Actfact-findingappealSupreme Court
Judgment
[2009] 12 S.C.R. 14
A G. JAYALAKSHMI & ORS.
V.
ARULMIGHU PAZKHIKANCHIYA VINAYAGAR & ITS
TEMPLE
(Civil Appeal No. 5081 of 2009)
B JULY 28. 2009
[S.8. SINHA, G.S. SINGHVI AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.]
Suit - Suit for declaration that the suit property (shop) ...
c belonged to a public temple - Decree for permanent
injunction to restrain defendants from sel!ing or alienating the
property also sought - Dismissal of by trial court - High Court
decreeing the suit on the ground that in earlier round of
litigation the temple and its properties were declared public
D in nature - On appeal, held : Nature of suit property and the
property of temple are different - Finding of fact is required
to be arrived at, for ascertaining identification as well as ~
nature and character of the land - Matter remitted to High
Court for deciding the matter afresh.
E The question involved in the present appeals was
whether the property in dispute belonged to the temple,
which in an earlier round of litigation was declared as a
public temple, or to a private litigating party.
F Allowing the appeal and remanding the matter to
High Court, the Court
HELD 1. A temple may be declared as a public temple
inter alia when a grant is made in favour of the public by
the owner of the property although the temple is
G
constructed by a private person, or if the temple is
constructed on Government land; and if the public in
general have a right of worship the Deity as contra
distinguished from the right of worship in a temple which
H 14
G. JAYALAKSHMI v. ARULMIGHU PAZKHIKANCHIYA 15
VINAYAGAR & ITS TEMPLE
is confined to a family or a community. If the suit A
..\ properties had been the subject matter of partition and if
the same had nothing to do with the temple in question
it would be one thing; however, it will be a different thing
if the temple and the suit properties in and around the
same had all along been treated as temple properties. B
[Para 13] [20-H; 21-A-B]
2. The nature of the property in respect of the temple
as also the suit properties are different. One of the
./
questions which should have been posed and answered
by the High Court is as to whether like the land on which c
the temple was constructed, the suit properties were also
situated on any public land or not. The High Court should
have also gone into other aspects of the matter in the
backdrop of documents produced by the parties and
should not have disposed of the appeal simply by relying D
upon some observation made with regard to temple
)- properties in the earlier round of litigation by the court.
A finding of fact was required to be arrived at upon
consideration of the pleadings of the parties and the
doc1Jments produced by them, for the purpose of E
ascertaining the identification of land as well as the
nature and character thereof. [Paras 17,18 and 21] [21-F-
H; 22-A-B]
1
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. F
5081 of 2009.
From the Judgment & Order dated 25.4.2006 of the High
Court of Judicature at Madras-Madurai bench in Appeal Suit
No. 396 of 2000.
G
K.V. Mohan for the Appellant.
1
E. Padmanabhan, V. Prabhakar, Asoka K. Sadhotcham,
Revathy Raghavan, R. Nedumaran for the Respondents.
H
16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R.
A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
1. Some of the defendants in the original suit, who
purchased the suit property from the defendant Nos. 1-3, are
B before us questioning the judgment and order dated 25.4.1996
passed by a learned single Judge of the High Court in Appeal
Suit No.396/2000 whereby and whereunder judgment and
decree dated 12.07.2000 passed by the learned Subordinate
Judge, Sivakasi in O.S. No.242 of 1999 was set aside.
c
2. Inter se relationship between the plaintiffs and the
predecessor-in- interest of the original defendant Nos. 1-3 is
not in dispute. It would appear from the following genealogical
tree:
D Muthuswamy Othuwar
I
I I
Seeni Othuwar Gnana Othuwar
~-----------1
E Muthuswamy Othuwar Kulanthaively Othuwar
I
1~----+------___,f-------+
Seenia Pillai Gnanam Mariappa , Shanmugam
Pillai Pillai Pillai •
F I
Muthuramalingam Pillai
I
I I I
Ranthinam Gomathi Panchavarnam Visalaksh1
G Ammal Muniasamy I
(1st Plaintiff) (4th Defendant)! 2nd Plaintiff 3rd Plaintiff
1-'--'-~~l~~~~I
Ravindran Aathi Naryaanan Sreenivasan
1st Defendant 2nd Defendant 3rd Defendant
H 3. In 1963, one S. Muthuramalingam Pillai filed an
G. JAYALAKSHMI v. ARULMIGHU PAZKHIKANCHIYA 17
VINAYAGAR & ITS TEMPLE [S.S. SINHA, J.]
application before the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious A
-1 and Charitable Endowment (Administration) Department,
Madurai for declaring Sri Pazhikanjia Vinayagar Temple,
Sivakasi is not a religious and charitable endowment within the
meaning of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Act, 1959 (for short 'the 1959 Act') and that he B
is the hereditary trustee of the temple. Shri K. T. T. Ramalingam
Chettiar was impleaded as respondent in the application.
4. The learned Deputy Commissioner framed the following
·" issues:
c
"(1) Whether the suit institution is not a religious institution?
(2) Whether the petitioner is the hereditary trustee of the
suit temple?
D
(3) To what relief is the petitioner entitled?"
~ 5. On the basis of the materials brought on record by the
parties to the said proceeding, it was held: -
"I therefore find that the suit institution is not a E
religious institution falling within the scope of the act. I find
on issue No.1 accordingly.
Item No.2: In view of the finding on Issue N0.1 it is
not necessary to determine whether the petitioner is the
hereditary trustee of the institution, as such this issue does F
not arise. I find accordingly on issue No.2.
Item No. 3: In view of the finding on issue No.1 it is
declared that Sri Pazhikanjia Vinayagar temple is not a
religious institution falling within the scope of the Act." G
-f 6. Feeling aggrieved by the afore-mentioned order, Shri
K.T.T. Ramalingam Chettiar preferred an appeal before the
Commissioner, which was marked as Appeal No.49/1965. By
an order dated 13.12.1960, the Commissioner upheld the order H
18 SUPREME. COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R.
A of the Deputy Commissioner stating: -
"On a careful consideration of the entire evidence placed
in this case, I am satisfied that the Deputy Commissioner has
gone in great detail of the entire evidence placed in the matter
8 and that he has come to the correct conclusion that the temple
in question is a private temple of the respondent and his
forefathers and that the claim of the appellant that it is a 'temple'
as defined in Section 6(20) of the Act is unsustainable, but that
it is not a 'religious institution' falling within the scope of Section
C 6(18) of the Act. I am, therefore, of the view that this appeal
should fail and consequently, the same is dismissed."
7. Thereafter, Shri K.T.T. Ramalingam Chettiar filed a suit
in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram in terms
of Section 70 of the 1959 Act for grant of a declaration that the
D temple was a public temple and not a private one. Shri S.
Muthuramalingarn Pillai also filed a suit for recovery of
possession of certain properties and damages against K.T.T.
~
Ramalingam Chettiar which was marked as O.S. No.124/1969.
E Having regard to the pleadings of the parties, the learned
trial Judge framed the following two sets of issues:-
"SET 1:
1. Whether the plaint mentioned temple is a public +
F temple as denied in Madras Act 25 of 1959?
2. Whether the order in OA 37 of 1963 on the file of
the Deputy Commissioner, HR & CE, Madurai and
AP No.49 of 1965 are liable to be set aside?
G 3. To what relief is the Plaintiff entitled?
._
SET 2:
1. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to possession of
the suit properties?
H
G. JAYALAKSHMI v. ARULMIGHU PAZKHIKANCHIYA 19
VINAYAGAR & ITS TEMPLE [S.B. SINHA, J.]
2. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to any damages? A
-1
3. If so, what is the quantum?
4. Whether the Plaintiffs are estopped from setting up
title to the suit property?
B
5. Whether the Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit?
6. Whether the temple is a private one or a public
one?
··-'-
7. Whether the court fee paid is correct? c
8. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
9. Whether the suit is not maintainable?
10. To what relief if any, are the plaintiffs entitled?" D
8. The suit filed by K.T.T. Ramalirigam Chettiar was
-)-
decreed by the Trial Court and it was declared that the temple
in question is a public temple. Simultaneously, the suit filed by
Muthuramalingam Pillai was dismissed and it was held that the E
plaintiff in that suit was not entitled to a decree of possession.
The heirs and legal representatives of Shri Muthuramalingam,
aggrieved thereby filed two appeals, which were dismissed by
a learned Single Judge of the High Court: on 4.10.1991. Letters
Patent Appeals filed by them were dismissed by the Division
F
Bench and the judgment and order of the Division Bench was
affirmed by this Court by dismissing the SLP.
9. After about 6 years of the dismissal of the letters patent
appeals, Rathinammal and two others filed a petition under
Section 63(b) of the 1959 Act for being declared as the G
hereditary trustees of the temple. That application is said to be
1 still pending. During the pendency of that application,
Rathinammal and two others filed a suit in the name of the
temple for declaring that properties mentioned in the suit
schedule belong to the temple. They also prayed for grant of a H
20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R.
A decree of permanent injunction to restrain defendant Nos. 1-4
and their successors/agents from selling or alienating the suit
property. The learned Subordinate Judge by a very detailed
judgment dated 12.7.2000 dismissed the said suit inter alia
holding:-
B
(i) that the suit properties were not involved in the
earlier round litigation;
(ii) the plaintiff is bound by the admission made by
P.W. 1, one of the plaintiffs, that the properties in
c suit had been mentioned in the deed of partition
dated 1917.
10. On an appeal preferred by the plaintiffs, the High Court
reversed the said judgment and decree of the Trial Court.
D The High Court rested its conclusion principally on the
observations made in the earlier litigation that the temple and
its properties are public in character. The High Court also relied
upon the admission made by O.W. 1 in his statement before
the Court that his grandfather had no right, title or interest over
E the suit properties.
11. Before us, the learned counsel for the parties have
made elaborate submissions. We have been taken through
various documents referred to in the judgments of the trial court,
F the High Court as also the judgments rendered in the earlier
round of litigation.
12. However, some of the basic documents including the
deed of partition and the pleadings of the two suits filed by
K.T.T. Ramalingam Chettiar and S. Muthuramalingam Pillai
G have not been produced so as to enable us to arrive at a definite
conclusion inter alia with regard to the identity of the suit
properties.
13. A temple may be declared as a public temple inter alia
H when a grant is made in favour of the public by the owner of
'"
'"' ~, JAYAl.,AKSHMI v, ARULMIGHU PAZKHIKANCHIYA 21
VINA¥AGAR ~."°ITS TEMPLE [S.B. SINHA, J.]
the property GJlthQLJgh the temple is constructed by a private A
person, or if the temple is eonstrw;;ted on government land; and
if the public in general have a right of worship the deity as
c;ontra-distinguished from the right of worship in a temple which
is confined to a family or a community. If the suit properties had
- been the subject matter of partition and if the same had nothing
to do with the temple in question it would be one thing; however,
it will be a different thing if the temple and the suit properties
8
in and around the same had all along been treated as temple
properties.
_, .
14. Mr. Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the C
appellants herein has taken great pains before us to show that
the suit property (shops) were in exclusive possession of
Muniaswamy and he alone was realizing rent therefrom, though
he .had not been able to participate in the management of the
t~mpl@ ge8i3!J~e he had been working elsewhere. It was, D
furthefmQf§, i;;gntendecj th9t evi?n the property tax in respect of
- the shop$ in qy@stion useg tg pi:; pGJid by Mµniaswami.
15. On the other hand, the contention of Mr.
I
Padmanabhan, the learned senior counsel, is that the property
tax used to be paid by the temple itself through the Hakdar
E
namely the manager of the temple.
16. Mr. Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing for some
of the respondents, informed us that the nature of the said
properties were described as "natham" namely 'village site'. F
17. It is, therefore, evident that the nature of the property
in respect of the temple as also the suit properties are different.
-- 18. In our view, one of the questions which should have
been posed and answered by the High Court is as to whether
G
like the land on which the temple was constructed, the suit
I·
properties were also situated on any public land or not. The
High Court should have also gone into other aspects of the
matter in the backdrop of documents produced by the parties H
...
22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R.
A and should not have disposed of the appeal simply by relying
upon some observations made with regard to temple
properties in the earlier round of litigation by the courts.
).... -
A finding of fact was required to be arrived at upon
consideration of the pleadings of the parties and the documents
B
produced by them, for the purpose of ascertaining the
identification of land as well as the nature and character thereof.
19. It has been contended before us by the learned counsel
for the respondents that there are a large number of documents
c to show that the properties belong to the temple. As against
this, learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that there
are large number of documents to show that Muniaswami was
realizing the rent.
20. We would have ourselves undertaken the exercise but
D
we are not in a position to do so as most of the documents
including the deed of partition, patta and other original
documents are not before us.
21. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and
E remand the matter to the High Court for consideration of the
,.
-
matter afresh.
We request the High Court to consider the desirability of
disposing of the matter as expeditiously as possible.
F 22. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
K.K.T. Appeal disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "public temple"Sign in to search