Supreme Court of India

M.S. V. RAJA AND ANR.versusSEENI THEVAR AND ORS.

Citation: 2001 INSC 366
Decided: 14 August 2001
Disposal: Directions issued
Bench: S RAJENDRA BABU

Holding

The suit temple is a public temple; the Rajus retain management rights but cannot bar the Endowment Department’s powers, and the injunction sought was not warranted.

Summary

The Rajus, a religious denomination, had administered the Arulighu Mariamman temple for over a century and claimed it was a private, denominational temple. Pandarams, who performed poojas, earlier lost claims of hereditary trusteeship, and later the public (Seeni Thevar and others) sought a declaration that the temple was a public Hindu institution and an injunction to prevent the Rajus from interfering with pandarams' worship. The High Court, exercising Section 100 CPC, reversed earlier findings and declared the temple public, granting the injunction. The Supreme Court held that, under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Act, there is a presumption that a temple is public unless the claimant proves it is private; the Rajus failed to rebut this, and the temple was correctly held public. While the Rajus retain management rights, these do not bar the Endowment Department’s statutory powers, and the injunction concerning pandarams' usage was unsupported and therefore denied. The appeal and the accompanying Special Leave Petition were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the suit temple is a public temple
Whether the suit temple has been under the management and administration of the appellants
Whether a permanent injunction restraining the appellants from interfering with worship by pandarams as per their usage could be granted

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 100

Subjects

public templeprivate templeHindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Actmanagement of templesubstantial question of lawSection 100 CPCinjunctionres judicatareligious denomination

Judgment

M.S. V. RAJA AND ANR. A
v.
SEEN! THEVAR AND ORS.

AUGUST 14, 2001

[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] B

Hindu Law:

Tamil Nadu Hindu Reiigious & Charitable Endowment Act, 1959 :
Sections 63 (b) and 108. Management of temple-Hereditary right of- C
Dispute regarding-Suit temple built on 'parampokh' land, adminstered and
managed by members of a religious .denomination from time immemorial-
'Pandarams' permitted to perform 'pooja' in the temple as 'poojaries'-Suit
by 'pandarams' that they were hereditary trustees-cum-poojaries dismissed-
Another suit at the instance of 'pandarams' that the suit temple was a public
temple decreed by High Cou~t-Jnjunction from interfering with worship by D
'pandarams' as per usage also granted-Correctness of-Held: There is an
initial presumption that a temple is a public one unless rebutted by clinching
testimony that it is a private temple-Ordinarily, a temple built on 'parampokh'
land is a public temple-Hence, temple rightly declared as public temple-
However, members of the religious denomination has not lost their right of E
management of the temple-'Pandarams', having lost in earlier litigation,
cannot claim any right-Hence, injunction granted in their favour not
sustainable.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : Section JOO.
F
Second appeal-Substantial question of /aw-Concurrent findings of
fact-Recording of-By both the courts below without any evidence in support
thereof-Effect of-Held : Such finding may itself be treated as a substantial
question of law-Hence, High Court was right in upsetting such a finding.

Second appeal-Substantial question of law-Concurrent findings of G
fact-Set aside without discussion and reasons-Held : Is patently
unsustainable.

Second appeal-Substantial questions of law-Formulation of-Held:
Though substantial questions of law are not specifically and separately
formulated, yet they may be inferred from the questions considered and H
513 .
514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A decided by the High Court.
Words and Phrases :

"Public temp/e"-Meaning of-In the context of Tamil Nadu Hindu
Religious & Charitable Endowment Act, 1959.

B The appellants were the members of a religious denomination and had
been administering and managing the suit temple from time immemorial.
The administration of the temple has always been by the trustees elected
among the said members and at no time, the Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department interfered with their management. The appellants
C permitted 'pandarams' to perform 'pooja' in the temple as 'poojaries'.

Some of the 'pandarams' joined together and filed a suit under Section
63(b) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Act, 1959
seeking a declaration that they were the hereditary trustees-cum-poojaries
of the suit temple and for permanent injunction restraining the appellants
D from interfering With their rights. The trial court dismissed the suit and the
appeal was also dismissed by the High Court. The judgment of the High
Courts had attained finality.

The respondents, at the instance of the 'pandarams' and for their
benefit, filed a suit for a declaration that the suit temple was a public
E religious institution belonging to the Hindu public in general as against the
exclusive claim by the appellants and for injunction from interfering in
'poojas' according to usage of 'panda rams' of the temple. The trial court
dismissed the suit holding that the suit temple was not a public temple but
a denominational temple belonging to the appellants. This finding was
.. confirmed by the first appellate court. However, the High Court, in serond
F appeal, under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, decreed the
suit as prayed for. Hence this appeal and the Special Leave Petition.

On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the High Court erred
in upsetting the concurrent findings of fact exercising jurisdiction in second
appeal without formulating any substantial questions of law as required
G under Section 100 CPC.

The following questions arose before this Court :

I. Whether the suit temple was a public temple ?

2. Whether the suit temple had been uader the management and
H administration of the appellants?
M.S.V. RAJA v. SEEN! IHEVAR SIS
3. Whether the relief of permanent injunction so as to restrain the A
appellants from interfering with the worship/poojas by 'pandramas' as per
their usage could be granted ?

Disposing of the appeal and the SLP the Court

HELD: I.I. In the absence of evidence as to the establishment of the B
suit temple by the appellants, no inference could be drawn that they established
or constructed the temple merely on the evidence of the management of the
temple for a long time. Even assuming that in the present case, inference
oftcontinuity of state of things could be drawn that can relate only to the
management of the temple by the appellants. But that cannot allow the court
to infer the establishment of the temple by them or that the temple belongs C
to them. So far as Tainil Nadu is concerned there is an initial presumption
that a temple is a public one, it being up to the party, who claims that it is
a private temple, to establish that fact affirmatively. Of course, this initial
presumption must be rebutted by clinching testimony in order to establish
that a temple is a private temple. f521-E, F, H; 522-Af D
1.2 The suit temple is build on 'parampokh' land. Though building of
a temple on a 'parampokh' land by itself may not be conclusive evidence of
it being a public temple; but in the absence of other evidence as in the present
·case, who founded or established the temple, it may be a circumstance
pointing in favour of it being a public temple.1521-F, GI E
T. V. Maha/inga Iyer v. State of Madras, 11981 f I SCC .445, relied on.

1.3. In the case on hand, there was neither pleading nor clinching
evidence as to who founded the temple and as to how the temple belonged to
the appellants. It is also on record that the temple was constructed on F
'parampokh' land. Under the circumstance, it is clear that the appellants
have failed to establish that their religious denomination constructed the
temple. Thus, when _both the courts below concurrently erred in recording
a finding with no evidence to support that the suit temple belonged to the
religious denomination of the appellants and not a public temple, the High G
Court was right in upsetting such a finding. The appellants have miserably
failed to rebut the initial presumption that it is a public temple. 1522-B, Cf

2. The appellants had not lost the right Of management of the suit
temple before the Constitution came into force. The appellants have been in
the management of the suit temple all along. But this right of management H .
516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A of the appellants shall not prevent the Hindu Religious & Charitable
Department from exercising such powers, which are conferred upon it by law
in regard to the admin.istration of the temple. [524-8)

3. The 'pandarams' in earlier litigations lost their claim that they
were hereditary trustees or hereditary poojaries of the temple. The judgment
B of the High Court negativing the claim of the 'pandarams' has attained
finality. The various reliefs were claimed at the instance of 'pandarams' and
for their benefit. Since the 'pandarams' could not re-agitate having lost
earlier, these reliefs are claimed in the suit. In other words, what could not
be achieved by the 'pandarams' directly, the plaintiffs in the suit wanted to
C achieve them at their instance indirectly. Therefore, relief of injunctiJn
could not have been granted to the plaintiffs. [524-H; 525-A, 8, CJ

4.1. The High Court, in second appeal, has reversed the concurrent
findings of both the courts below impliedly on the aspect of management of
the suit temple by the appellant, without disc·ussion and reasons when it
D granted the decree as prayed for that too exercising jurisdiction under
Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which is patently
unsustainable. (523-F)

4.3. The High Court, in its judgment, has dealt with substantial
questions of law as required under Section 100 CPC. A finding recorded by .
E both the courts below with no evidence to support it was itself considered as
a substantial question of law by the High Court. Having regard to the
questions that were considered and decided by the High Court it cannot be
said that substantial questions of law did not arise for consideration and they
were not formulated. May be, substantial questions of law were not specifically
F and separately formulated. (525-E, Fl

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2417 of
1992.

From the Judgment and Order dated 29.4.1992 of the Madras High Court
G in S.A. No. 1858 of 1984.
WITH

Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19184 of 2000.

K. Parasaran and Bhimrao N. Naik, B. Ravi Raja, V. Balachandran and
H A.T.M. Sampath for the Appellants.
M.S.V. RAJA v. SEENITHEVAR [PATIL, J.] 517
K. Ramamurthy, P.N. Ramalingam, V. Krishnamurthy ~d Ms. Seita A
Vaidyalingam for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, J. This appeal by the defendants in the suit O.S.
No. 93 of 1976 is directed against and aggrieved by judgment and decree B
dated 29.4.1992 passed by the High Court of Madras in S.A. No. 1858/84.

In brief, the facts and circumstances leading to filing of this appeal are
the following:

According to the appellants, Arulighu Mariamman temple at Rajapalayam
c
has been administered and managed from time immemorial by the religious
denomination of community of Rajus of Singarajakottai (for short 'Rajus').
Originally members of the said religious denomination were worshiping in the
temple and as time passed on, persons belonging to other communities also
started worshiping in the temple. The administration of the temple has always D
been by the trustees elected among Rajus and at no time, the Hindu Religious
and Charitable Endowment Department (H.R.& C.E. Deptt.) interfered with
their management. Rajus permitted pandarams to perform puja in the temple
as poojaries.
• E
Seven pandarams joined together, filed an application O.A. No. 76173
before the Deputy Commissioner, H.R.& C.E. Dept!. under section 63 (b) of
the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Act, 1959 (for short
'the Act') seeking declaration that they were hereditary trustees of the temple:
The said application was dismissed and appeal No. 100/74 filed by the
pandarams against the said order was also dismissed by the Commissioner F
on 21.10.1975. The pandarams filed suit O.S. No. 13/76 in the court of
Subordinate Judge seeking declaration that they were the hereditary trustees-
cum-poojaries of the suit temple, by setting aside the aforementioned orders
of the authorities under the Act and for permanent injunction ~estraining
Raj us from interfering with their rights. The learned Subordinate Judge, after G
trial, dismissed the suit holding that pandarams were neither hereditary trustees
nor poojaries. The appeal A.S. No. 533/83 filed by pandarams (poojaries) was
also dismissed by the High Court on 18.9.1987. The said judgment of the High
Court has attained finality.

While things stood thus, during the pendency of the aforementioned H
518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A proceedings initiated by the pandarams, the H.R.&C.E. Deptt. issued a notice
on 16.5.1975 inviting applications from general public for appointment of
additional trustees; obviously treating the suit temple as coming within the
purview of the Act. Rajus feeling that their Fundamental Rights guaranteed
under Article 26 of the Constitution were violated, filed the suit O.S. No. 100/
B 75 on behalf of their religious denomination for a declaration that the suit
temple is a denominational temple belonging to their denomination and for a
permanent injunction restraining H.R.&.C.E. Deptt. from interfering with their
rights. The suit was decreed giving declaration and injunction with observation
that it will not prevent the Department from exercising such of the powers as
are available under the Act applicable for the administration of the temple
C belonging to a religiQus denomination. The Dep?rtment filed A.S. No. 197 of
1977 against the said judgment. The appeal was dismissed, finding no good

-
ground to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.
The second appeal No. 1946 of 1979, filed by the Department, was also
dismissed in view of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the
courts below. Seeni Thevar & Others filed Special Leave Petition No. 19184
D of 2000 with permission to challenge the judgment passed in S.A. No. 1946
of 19.79. This special leave petition was directed to be listed after the disposal
of S.A. No. 1858 of 1984 pending then in the High court of Madras arising
out ofO.S. No. 93of1978 filed by Seeni Thevars & others. The special leave
petition No. 12955 of 1990 filed by the Department against the dismissal of
E s.4. No. 1946 of 1979 was dismissed on the ground of delay. This court on
22.10.1992 directed that S.L.P. No. 19184 of2000 may be considered alongwith
this appeal at the time of final hearing. It is thus this Civil Appeal No. 2417
of 1992 and Special Leave Petition No. 19184 of 2000 are before us for
consideration now.

F In the meanwhile, the respondents (Seeni Thevar & Ors.) filed a suit
O.S. No. 93/78 in the court of Additional District Muns if for a declaration that
the suit temple is a public religious institution belonging to Hindu public in
general as against the exclusive claim by the Rajus and for injunction from
interfering in poojas according to usage of pandarams of the temple. The
G appellants (Rajus) opposed and contested the suit stating that perusal of the
plaint averments and relief sought for, clearly indicate that it was only the
pandarams who had set up the respondents to re-agitate their claims by
putting up a facade of the cause of general Hindus public; the suit temple
had been constructed by the Rajus who formed a religious denomination and
which had been in their exclusive administration and management beyond
H living memory for over a century; that the members of other communities were
M.S.V. RAJ Av. SEENI°THEVAR [PATIL, J.] 519
also permitted to worship; that the said denomination have been electing A
among ·themselves trustees for the administration of the temple; the suit was
barred by the principle of res judicata in view of the judgment in O.S. No.
I 00 of 1975 and that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit in view
of section I 08 of the Act. J\fter trial, appreciating the evidence brought on
record and after hearing, the suit was dismissed holding that the suit temple B
was not a public temple but a denominational temple belonging to Rajus and
that the suit was barred by the principle of res judicata. A.S. No. 14/n flied
against the said judgment and decree was dismissed confirming the judgment
and decree of the trial court. The respondents ~erein (the plaintiffs in the suit)
filed second appeal No. 1858/84. A learned Single Judge of.the High Court
allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of both the courts below and C
decreed the suit as prayed for. Hence this Civil Appeal No. 2417 of 1992 by
the defendants in the suit O.S. No. 93 of 1978.

Shri K. Parasaran, leaned senior counsel for the appellants urged that
the appellants had succeeded in all the previous proceedings; there is ample
and convincing evidence to show that the Rajus have been in the D
administration and management of the suit temple for more than hundred
years; hence the High Court was not right and justified in upsetting the
concurrent findings of fact exercising jurisdiction in second appeal; in the
absence of formulation of substantial questions of law that arose for
consideration between the parties under section I 00 of CPC, the impugned E
judgment cannot be sustained; the very frame of the suit and the reliefs
sought for and in particular the relief as to restraining the appella11ts in
performing poojas by pandarams as per their usage shows that it is the
pandarams who are re-agitating their claim having lost in the earlier
proceedings; neither usage in poojas by pandarams was pleaded in the plaint
· giving the details of usage and nature of poojas nor there was an issue raised F
in this regard; even there is no evidence to support the same but strangely
the learned Single Judge of the High Court granted relief of injunction relating
to performance of poojas by pandarams as per their usage, which according
to the learned counsel, being patently illegal, cannot be upheld. According
to him, a denominational institution could also be public institution; the High G
court was not clear in this regard. The learned senior counsel took us through
the relevant portions of the impugned judgment and various documents in
support of his submissions.

On the other hand, Shri A. T.M. Sampath, learned counsel appearing for
Seeni Thevar & others made submissions supporting the impugned judgment. H
520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001) SUPP. I S.C.R.

A He added that the suit was not barred by the principle of res judicata in view
of the judgment in O.S. No. I00/75 as the respondents (Seeni Thevar & Ors.)
were not parties to the said suit; they had sought for impleading them in the
suit but their application was rejected; the special leave petition filed by them
-
challenging the judgment in S.A. No. 1946/79 arising out of the O.S. No. I 00
B of 1975 is being heard alongwith the present appeal. He also pointed out that
the High Court did formulate substantial question of law as is clear from para ....
22 of the impugned judgment under appeal.

Shri K. Ramamurthi, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent
H.R.& C.E. Deptt. argued in support of the stand of the Department. He also
C submitted that the finding of the High Court recorded in the impugned
judgment that the suit temple is a public temple is correct and justified. He
alternatively submitted in case of any dispute as to character of temple or as
to usage i~ performance of pooja, it could be left open to the Department to
decide.

D On the arguments of the learned counseHor the parties, the following
points arise for consideration:-

(I) Whether the suit temple is a public temple?

(2) Whether the suit temple has been under the management and
E administration of the appellants? .......

(3) Whether the relief of permanent injunction so as to restrain the
appellants from interfering with the worship I poojas by
pandarams as per their usage could be granted?

F Re: Point No. /-

The appellants in their plaint in O.S. No. 100/75 only averred that the
suit temple is a very small temple owned by the Rajus who formed a religious
denomination and had been in the management and administration of the suit
temple from beyond living memory for over a century. Nothing is stated as
G to when the temple was constructed, who constructed it or how the temple
belonged to them. In the written statement, the defendants specifically denied
that the temple belonged to religious denomination of Rajus although there
was no denial that Rajus formed a religious denomination. In the plaint, a
specific declaration was sought that the temple is a denomination temple
belonging to the religious denomination of Rajus. The trial court in para 24
H of the judgment concluded thus:-
M.S.V. RAJA v. SIOENI THEVAR [PATIL, J.) 521
"24. To sum up, though there is no precise evidence relating to the A
origin of the suit temple, it is manifest from the course of the conduct
pursued by the Rajus Community and also the members of the public
that the temple in question has always been in the management of
Singarajakottai Rajus, that they have been mostly maintaining the
same from out of the funds contributed by the community and in fact, B
no one from any other community had any hand in the management
of the affairs of the said temple. So, under these circumstances, the
inescapable conclusion is that the suit temple is only a denominational
temple and the issue is answered accordingly."

In A.S. No. 197/77, the learned District Judge, while agreeing with the C
finding that Rajus constituted a religious denomination and that the
management of the temple had been with them, proceeded further to say, even
after noticing that origin of the temple is not known and there is no direct
evidence as to by whom and when it was built, probabilities of the case were
that the temple in question ought to have been built by Rajus. However, the
appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the trial court was confirmed. In D
the second appeal No. I 946/79 the High Court noticed that both the courts
below found that the origin of the temple is lost in antiquity and there is no
direct evidence as to when and by»whom the temple was built. But, on the
basis of overwhelming evidence to show that beyond memory the suit temple
0

has been managed only by Rajus concluded that the temple must have been E
constructed only by Rajus. In the impugned judgment, the learned Judge has
taken the view that in the absence of evidence as to the establishment of the
suit temple by the appellants, no inference could be drawn that they established
or constructed the temple merely on the evidence of the management of the
temple for long time. According to him, even assuming that in the present
case, inference of continuity of state of things, could be drawn that can relate F
only to, the management of temple by Raj us. But that cannot allow the court
to infer the establishment of temple by them or temple belongs to them. We
agree with this view of the learned Judge. It may also be mentioned that the
suit temple is built on parampokh. Though building of temple on a parampokh
land by itself may not be conclusive eviden'Ce of it being a public temple but G
in the absence of other evidence as in the present case, who found or
established the temple, it may be a circumstance pointing in favour of it being
a public temple. According to the learned Judge, the decisions referred to and
relied on by the courts below to draw inference that the Rajus must have
'Constructed the temple was not correct. This Court in TV Mahalinga Iyer v.
State of Madras and Another, [ 1981] I sec 445 referring to the very provisions H
522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A of the Act has held that so far as Tamil Nadu is concerned there is initial
presumption that a temple is a public one, it being up to the party, who claims
that it is a private temple, to establish that fact affinnatively. Of course, this
initial presumption must be rebutted by clinching testimony in order to establish
that a temple is a private temple. In the same judgment the very situation of
temple on Government property was also taken as a piece of evidence in
B support of a public temple. In the case on hand, as already stated above, there
was neithe_i: tilt"ad_ing nor clinching evidence as to who founded the temple
and as to how the temple belonged to the appellants. It is also on record that
the temple was constructed on paramokh land. Under the circumstances, it is
clear that the appellants have failed to establish that the denomination of
C Rajus constructed the temple. Thus, when both the courts below concurrently
erred in recording a finding with no evidence to support that the suit temple
belonged to religious denomination of Raj us and not a public temple, the High
Court was right in upsetting such finding. In our view the appellants have
miserably failed to rebut the initial presumption that it is a public temple.
Hence we agree with the High Court in recording a finding that the suit temple
D is a public temple.

Re: Point No. 2

In the suit O.S. No. I 00175 filed by the appellants against the Department,
E a clear finding was recorded that the appellants (Rajus) as religious
denomination were managing the affairs .of the suit temple for more than
hundred years beyond the living memory. The said finding was accepted by
the first appellate court in AS No. 197/77. The High Court in S.A. No. 1946/
79 observed that there is overwhelming evidence to show that beyond memory
the suit temple had been managed only by Rajus and innumerable documents
F have been filed to establish the same and that both the courts below have
analysed the evidence in this respect very carefully and have come to the
concurrent conclusion that from time beyond memory, this temple has been
administered only by the Rajus through their elected trustees. Dealing with
the contention of the learned Govt. Advocate for the Department that Rajus
G had lost their right, if any, even before the Constitution of India came into
force, the Court held that "According to the learned Government Advocate,
from 1939 onwards it is the Department of Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments that has been appointing trustees to the suit temple and hence
it is not open to the Rajus of Singarajakottai to claim the institution to be a
denominational one. It is no doubt true that the Department has been
H appointing trustees at least from 1939, but it has been appointing only those
M.S.V. RAJA v. SEEN! THEVAR [PATIL, J.] 523

persons elected by the Raju community of Singarajakottai. In Exb.A.2 property A
register, the mode of appointment is clearly indicated and it is recited therein
that such of these persons who are elected by the Singarajakottai Andhra
Kshatriya Rajus Mahimai Fund Executive Committee are appointed by the
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment's Deputy Commissioner for a
period of five· years. No member of any other community and in fact, no B
person other than the person elected by the community of Rajus of
Singarajakottai has even been appointed as trustee of the suit temple. These
facts are not disputed before me by the learned Government Advocate. The
appointment of the persons elected by the Raj us of Singarajakottai as trustee
of the suit temple amounts only to a recognition of the right of that community
to elect the trustees for the suit institution. This practice far from being in C
derogation of the rights of the Rajus of Singarajakottai is only in confirmation
thereof. The Rajus of Singarajakottai cannot, therefore, be said to have lost
their right to this institution."

In the suit O.S. No. 93/78, out of which the present appeal arises, the
trial court after appreciating the evidence on record inter alia recorded a D
finding that Rajus have all along been attending to the management of the
temple for several decades in the past. The first appellate court in para 18 of
the judgment stated that the respondents also admit that the origin of the
temple is not known. However, they claim that ·they have been in the
management of the temple affairs for the past hundred years and more, and
they have been maintaining the temple and its affairs, attending to several E
renovation works and new constructions. After referring to the documentary
and oral evidence, a finding was recorded that these appellants and their
ancestors were in management of the suit temple for the past so many
decades and 'that they have also acquired properties in the name of temple,
as seen from several sale deeds taken by them. The High Court in the second F
appeal No. 1858/84 has reversed the concurrent findings of both the courts
below impliedly on the aspect of management of the suit temple by the
appellants, without discussion and reasons when he granted decree as prayed
for that too exercising jurisdiction under Section I 00 CPC which, in our view,
is patently unsustainable. The learned Single Judge of the High Court has not
recorded reasons to dislodge the reasons given by both the courts below in G
arriving at the conclusion that the appellants were in the management of the
temple. Even the High Court in its judgment has stated thus:-

"But, it should be noted th.at even assuming that in the present case
such inference of continuity of state of things backwards may be
drawn that can relate only to, if at all, the management of temple by H
524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A the Rajus. But that cannot allow the court to infer the establishment
of temple by them."

Even the learned counsel for the respondents before the High Court
contended that the courts below had wrongly drawn inference that temple
was constructed by Rajus from the mere management of the suit temple by
B them for several decades. We are of the view that the appellants had not lost
the right of management of the suit temple before the Constitution came into
force. In this view, we hold that the appellants have been in the management
of the suit temple all along. But this right of management of the appellants
shall not prevent the Department from exercising such powers, which are
C conferred upon them by law in regard to the administration of the temple. It
may also be added that in the suit O.S. No. 100 of 1975 filed by the appellants
themselves it is held so and which part of the decree was not challenged by
the appellants.

Re: Point No. 3
D
In the suit O.S. No. 93/78, the plaintiffs (respondents herein) sought for
the following reliefs:-

"(a) declaring that the suit institution is a public religious institution
belonging to the Hindu Public in general as against the exclusive
E claim by the defendants on behalf of Rajus of Singarajakottai
Rajap:ilayam, with a right of entry for all the Hindu citizens into it/or
worship in pooja according to usage by pandarams of the temple
and consequently granting permanent injunction restraining the
defendants, their men and agents restraining them from using any
further seals for the institution with a version setting up a title to the
F temple for their community exclusively and also restraining them from
printing or putting up boards as if the suit institution belongs to the
Rajus of Singarajakottai absolutely and further restraining them from
in any way changing the usage in all pujas by pandarams in the suit
institution :
G
(b) .................... ..

We have already stated above that the pandarams in earlier litigations
H lost their claim that they were hereditary trustees or hereditary poojaries of
M.S.V. RAJA v. SEEN! THEVAR [PATIL, J.] 525
the temple in O.A. No. 76/73 as well as OS. No. 13/76 upto to the High Court. A
The judgment of the High Court negativing the claim of the pandarams has
attained finality. A plain reading of the underlined portions of the reliefs
extracted above shows that these reliefs were claimed at the instance of
pandarams and for t~:eir benefit. Since pandarams could not re-agitate having
lost earlier, these reliefs are claimed in the suit. In other words, ,,What could B
not be achieved by the pandarams directly, the plaintiffs in the suit wanted
to achieve them at their instance indirectly. This apart, there is no pleading
and there are no averments in the plaint as to what was_ the usage of
pandarams for worship in poojas. Further, neither there was an issue raised
in the suit nor evidence was led in support of the same. This being the
position, the High Court for the first time, in the second appeal could not have C
granted this relief at all. The High Court in the impugned judgment has
decreed the suit of the plaintiffs as prayed for, which includes this relief also.
Hence, we have no hesitation to hold that relief of injunction could not have
been granted to the plaintiffs.

We may also state here that the High Court was right in taki~g the view D
that the suit was not barred by principle of res judicata in view of the
judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 100175 for the very reasons stated
in the High Court judgment. That apart, SLP No. 19184/2000 against the said
judgment was ordered to be heard alongwith this appeal. Accordingly it was
also heard at the time of final hearing. E
We are unable to accept the argument of the learned senior counsel for
the appellants that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained as no
substantial question of law was formulated as required under Section_ I 00
CPC. In para 22 of the judgment the High Court has dealt with substantial
questions of law. Whether a finding recorded by both the courts below with F
no evidence to support it was itself considered as a substantial question of
law by the High Cgurt? It is further stated that the other questions considered
and dealt with by the learned Judge were also substantial questions of law.
Having regard to the questions that were considered and decided by the High
Court it cannot be said that substantial questions of law did not arise for G
consideration and they were not formulated. May be, substantial .questions
of law were not specifically and separately formulated. In this view we do not
find any merit in the argument of the learned counsel in this regard.

In the result for the reasons stated above, we hold that the suit temple
is a public temple, The management of the suit temple has been with religious H
526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001) SUPP. I S.C.R.

A denomination of Rajus. However, this right of management of the appellants
shall not prevent the Department from exercising such powers, which are
conferred upon them by law in regard to the administration of the temple. The
relief of declaration and injunction so far it relates to worship in pooja
according to usage by Pandarams in the temple is rejected. This appeal and
B special leave petition stand disposed of in the above terms. No orders as to .
costs.

v.s.s. Appeal and SLP 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