Supreme Court of India
PARASAMAYA KOLERINATHA MADAM, TIRUNELVELIversusP. NATESA ACHARI & ORS.
- Citation
- 2011 INSC 702
- Decided
- 22 September 2011
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- R V RAVEENDRAN
Holding
The property is the Math’s and does not become a temple merely by the presence of idols or public worship.
Summary
The appellant, Parasamaya Kolerinatha Math, sued the defendants for declaration of title and possession of a Chennai property that housed the Meenakshiamman idol and the founder's statue. The defendants claimed the premises was a public temple belonging to the Viswakarma community. The High Court Single Judge held the property belonged to the Math, but the Division Bench reversed, deeming it a temple. The Supreme Court examined the definitions of "Math" and "Temple" under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, and found that mere installation of idols and public worship does not convert a Math into a temple. Documentary evidence showed the property had been part of the Math for over half a century and was managed by a committee appointed by the Math. Consequently, the Court held the suit property is the Math’s, ordered possession to vest with it, and directed a joint management committee. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the Division Bench’s decision.
Issues considered
- Whether the suit property belongs to the plaintiff Math.
- Whether the Division Bench erred in disregarding material documentary evidence.
- Whether installation of idols and public worship converts Math property into a temple under the Act.
Legislation cited
- Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959s. 6(13), s. 6(20), s. 64(1)
Subjects
MathTempleHindu Religious and Charitable Endowments ActProperty ownershipReligious endowmentsPublic worshipGuru PoojaManagement committeeViswakarma community
Judgment
[2011) 11 S.C.R. 475
PARASAMAYA KOLERINATHA MADAM, TIRUNELVELI A
v.
P.NATESA ACHARI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.8439 of 2001)
SEPTEMBER 22, 2011
B
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.]
TAMIL NADU HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE
ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1959:
c
ss.6(13) and 6(20) - 'Math' and 'temple' - Ingredients of
- Explained - Suit property comprising statue and Padukas
of founder of the Math - Subsequently, idol of Goddess
Meenakshi and other idols installed in the premises - Held:
The oral and documentary evidence led in the case clearly 0
establish that the suit property belongs to the Math and it is
being used to celebrate Guru Pooja in the honour of the
founder of the Math and the Mathadhipathis regularly - The
idol of Meenakshiamman was installed by the 32nd
Mathadhipathi of the math in the suit property - There is
nothing to show that the installation was with the object of E
dedicating the premises as a place of public religious worship
- The suit property with the installed idols is declared to be
the property of the plaintiff-Math - The possession and control
of the suit property with the place of worship
(Meenakshiamman temple) vests with the plaintiff Math - F
Directions given as regards management of the Math - Hindu
Law.
The appellant Math filed a suit (C.S. No. 211983)
against respondents 1 and 2 (defendants 1 and 2) and G
two others for declaration of title and delivery of
possession of the suit property situate in
Komaleeswararpet in Chennai which included the idols
installed therein. It was the case of the plaintiff-Math that
475 H
476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 11 S.C.R.
A it was established c~nturies ago at Tirunelveli by Swami
Anavaratha Soundaraja Perumal; the Mathadhipathi used
to be elected for life by the Viswakarma community; that
the suit property was owned by the Math for centuries;
that the suit property was being managed by a nominee
B of the Math; that the idol of goddess Meenakshi and the
statue of the founder of the Math with his Padukas were
installed by the Math in the suit property in the eighteenth
century and were worshipped by the disciples of the
Math and other devotees; that in the .year 1981 it came
c to light that the persons earlier managing the property
had handed over its management to defendants 1 and 2
who were attempting to claim the suit property with the
Meenakshiamman idol as a temple independent of the
Math, managed by the local Viswakarma communi~y
without the knowledge and consent of the Mathadhipathi.
0
Defendants 1 and 2 resisted the suit contending that the
suit property was the Meenakshiamman temple that was
in existence for the benefit of and under the management
of the members of Viswakarma community living in
Komaleeswararpet in Chennai, and the plaintiff Math had
E no conne'ction with the suit property. The Single Judge
of the High Court decreed the suit holding that the suit
property belonged to the plaintiff Math, but the Division
Bench held the suit property to be a temple and,
consequently, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved, the plaintiff-
F Math filed the appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 There are two necessary ingredients for
a structure or place to be described as a temple under
G the Act: (i) its use as a place of public religious worship;
and (ii) dedication of the structure or place to, or for the
~enefit of, or use as of right by, the Hindu community or
a section thereof, as a place of public religious worship.
The mere fact that members of the public are allowed to
H
PARASAMAYA KOLERINATHA MADAM, TIRUNELVELI v. 4 77
P.NATESAACHARI
worship at a place, will not make it a public temple. The A
Hindu sentiments and the tenets of Hinduism do not
normally exclude worshippers from a place of worship,
even when it is private or part of a Math. Therefore, the
crucial test is not whether the members of the public are
permitted to worship, but whether the worship by the B
members of the public is as of right by the Hindu
community or any section thereof, or whether a place has
been dedicated a place of public religious worship. [para
8] [488-H; 489-A-C]
Goswami Shri Mahalaxmi Vahuji vs. Shah Ranchhoddas
c
Kalidas (Dead) & Ors. -AIR 1970 SC 2025 and TD. Gopalan
vs. The Commissioner of Hindu Religions and Charitable
Endowments, Madras -AIR 1972 SC 1716; Radhakanta Deb
vs. The Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments,
Orissa AIR 1981 SC 798 - relied on. D
Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board vs.
Deivanai Ammal - 1953 (2) MLJ 688; Bodendraswami Mutt
vs. The President of the Board of Commissioners for Hindu
Religious Endowments; 1955 (1) MLJ 60, and The E
Commissioner, Hmdu Religious & Charitable Endowment ·
(Admn.) Department vs. T.A. T. Srimath Gnaniar Mada/ayam
- 2003 (1) MLJ 726 - approved.
Mundacheri Koman vs. Atchµthan - ILR 58 Mad. 91
F
(PC); and Thambu Chetti Subraya Chetti vs. A. T. Arundel -
ILR 6 (1883) Mad. 287 - referred to.
1.2 It is also well-settled that mere installation and
consecration of idols in a place will not make it a place
of public religious worship. Where the evidence shows G
that the property retained the identity as a Math and
where Gurupoojas (functions celebrating/important days
associated with the founder or head of the math) are
performed regularly, it will not lose the characteristic of
a Math and become a temple, merely because idols have H
478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 11 S.C.R.
A been installed and members of a section of Hindu
community offer worship. In fact, this fact is now
statutorily recognized in the definition of 'Math' ins. 6(13)
of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Act, 1959 which makes it clear that a Math
B includes any place of religious worship which is
appurtenant to the institution of a Math. [para 9] [489-G-
H; 490-A-B]
1.3 The plaintiff-Math specifically claims that tfle suit
property belonged to it and produced several documents,
C the genuineness of which was not under question. Ext-
P1 is the certified copy of the preliminary decree in the
scheme suit(OS No. 58/1922). The suit property was one
of the properties shown as belonging to the Math. After
such preliminary decree, a draft scheme was filed and. a
D scheme was framed on 2.5.1925. Ext. P2 is the final
decree dated 10.9.1927 in the said suit. The final decree
declared that 'RS' was the Mathadhipathi of the institution,
in whom, according to the scheme settled in the
preliminary decree, the properties described in the saitl
E final decree vested. The first schedule thereto
enumerates the properties owned by the Math and it
includes the property situated at Komaleeswararpet,
Chennai described as "Srimath Parasamaya Kolerinatha
Swami Madam - Sri Meenakshiamman temple and its
F assets". This document establishes beyond doubt that
at an undisputed point of time, the said suit property was
the property belonging to the plaintiff Math, vested in its
Mathadhithipathi. [para 13] [492-F-G; 493-B-G]
G 1.4 As against the documents (Ext. P1 and P2) which
trace the title to more than 55 years before filing of the
instant suit, the defendants have not produced any title
deeds. They have produced documents to show that the
suit property and the temple therein are being managed
by the members of the community at Komaleeswararpet
H
PARASAMAYA KOLERINATHA MADAM, TIRUNELVELI v. 4 79
P.NATESAACHARI
from around 1938 onwards. Obviously, therefore, the A
question of impleading either defendants 1 and 2 or their
predecessors in 1924 or 1925 did not arise. The
entrustment of management by the Math to the elders/
members of the Viswakarma Community under the
guidance and supervision of the Math, would not divest B
the title of the Math to the property. [para 14] [493-H; 494-
A-D]
1.5 There are undisputed documents which establish
that the suit property where the idol of Meenakshiamman
is installed is the property of the plaintiff Math. The most C
important of the documents, which wou.ld clinch the case
in support of the plaintiff Math is Ext. P16 which is a
certified copy of the petition dated 7.10.1978 uls 64(1) of
the Act (OA No,10211978) filed by defendants 1 and 2 and
other managing committee members of D
Meenakshiamman Temple before the Deputy
Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments (Administration), Madras, for framing a
scheme for appointment of Trustees and management of
the temple. It has been stated in the petition that Sri E
Meenakshiamman temple is located in a Mutt belonging to
Srimath Parasamaya Kolarinathaswami, who was the head of
the members of the Viswakarma Community residing in
Komaleeswaranpet, from time immemorial." Several other
documents, namely, Exts. P-2, P-6, P-7, P-8, P-9, P-13, P- F
14, P-15, P-17 and P-18 produced by the plaintiff Math and
issued by the defendants and their predecessors also
establish that the suit property was always considered
to be the property of the Math. [para 15 and 16) [494-E-
H; 495-A-H; 496-A-H; 497-A-C] G
1.6 The defendants marked Ext. 01 to D 42. Most of.
the said documents related to the festivals conducted in
connection with the Meenakshiamman temple or
regarding the handing over of management of the temple
H
480 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 11 S.C.R.
A from one managing committee to another managing
committee. But several of them relate to the undisputed
period before the suit and clearly prove the case of the
plaintiff Math. These documents irrefutably establish that
the temple was a part of the Math; that the Math appointed
B a local elder of Viswakarma Community at
Komaleeswaranpet to manage the suit property and the
place of worship therein; that the local elder handed over
management to successive elected managing
committees (from the Viswakarma community at
c Komaleeswaranpet, Chennai) to be in day to day
management; that the defendants and their predecessors
who were the members of the Managing Committee of the
temple, had always accepted and described the place of
worship as being a part of Parasamaya Kolerinatha
Guruswamigal Madam, that is plaintiff-Mutt. When some
0
of the pamphlets exhibited by defendants describe the
place of worship in . the Math property as
Meenakshiamman 'koil', the word was not used as
referring to a 'temple' as defined in the Act, but as a place
E of worship always as part of and belonging to the plaintiff
math. [para 17 and 18) [497-D-H; 498-A-F]
1. 7 The oral evidence of the second defendant - DW1
also establishes that Meenakshiamman Koil was part of
plaintiff Math. In the examination-in-chief, he states that
F the suit property is Meenakshiamman temple which has
been administered by a group of trustees elected/
appointed by the Viswakarma community in
Komaleeswararpet and the temple belongs to the
Viswakarma community of Komaleeswararpet. However
G he also stated that Srimat Parasamaya Kolerinatha
Swamigul, who lived several centuries ago in Tirunelveli,
was the Guru of Viswakarma community and there is a
statue of the said Swami in the temple; that a sect of
Viswakarma community regularly conducts Guru Pooja
H in honour of the founder of the Math in the premises. The
PARASAMAYA KOLERINATHA MADAM, TIRUNELVELI v. 481
P.NATESAACHARI
extract of some of his· answers establish the case of the A
plaintiff Math. [para 19) [498-G-H; 499-A-B]
f.8 The Single Judge has referred to oral and
documentary evidence in detail and recorded a
categorical finding that the property belonged to the 8
plaintiff Math and that the claim of the defendants that the
plaintiff Math had nothing to do with the suit property was
false and untenable. On the other hand, the Division
Bench failed to consider the significance of these
relevant documents. It failed to notice that mere existence C
of idols in Math premises or worship thereof by the public
would not convert a property belonging to the Math into
a temple, and that installation of the idol Meenakshiamman
and installation of the statue of Sri Swami Parasamaya
Kolerinatha Guru and conducting the festivals and
Gurupoojas were part of Math's activities being held and D
conducted in the name of the plaintiff Mutt or its
Mathadhipathi. The Division Bench has proceeded on the
erroneous i.mpression that existence of an idol in a math
property, when worshipped by the members of the
· community, would convert the math property into a E
temple. [para 12 and 20) [492-C-E; 501-D-G]
1.9 The oral and documentary evidence produced by
the plaintiff and defendants clearly and categorically
establish: (i) the suit property belonged to the plaintiff F
Math; (ii) the Meenakshiamman idol was installed by the
32nd Mathadhipathi of the Math in suit property, in· the
eighteenth century. There is nothing to show that
installation was with the object of dedicating the
premises as a place of public religious worship. On the G
other hand, the suit property was and has always been
a property belonging to the plaintiff Math, where the
members of Vishwakarma community were permitted to
offer worship to the idol of Meenakshiamman; (iii) the suit
property is used regularly to celebrate Guru pooja in H
482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 11 S.C.R.
A honour of the founder of the Matb and the
Mathadhipathis. The premises was used by the
Mathadhipathi of the plaintiff Math and his disciples and
followers for their stay at Chennai; (iv) the head of plaintiff
Math had directed the Viswakarma community in,
B Komaleeswararpettai, Chennai to manage the day to day
affairs of the suit property including provision for worship
of idols in the property by constituting a Managing
Committee. The Managing Committee was managing the
Math property and the temple therein, recognizing and
c accepting that they were part of plaintiff Math; (v) in the
year 1978, the defendants arid others In management
attempted unsuccessfully to assert that the premises is
exclusively a temple belonging to the members of
Viswakarma community at Komaleeswararpet and not the
plaintiff Math. [para 21] [501-H; 502-A-G]
0
1.10 As the management through a local committee
has been in vogue for several decades, it would be
appropriate if the same system is continued for the
efficient management of the suit property and the place
E of worship. The Managing Committee should consist of
a Chairman nominated by the Mathadhipathi of plaintiff-
Math and six members (of whom three shall be nominated
by plaintiff Math and the remaining three shall be elected
by the Viswakarma community at Komaleeswararpet,
F Chennai). The said Managing Committee will be
accountable to the plaintiff-Math and act under its
directions. [para 22] [502-H; 503-A-B]
1.11 The judgment and decree of the division bench
G of the High Court is set aside and the judgment and
decree of the Single Judge decreeing the suit is restored
to the effect: (i) The suit property with the installed idols
and other assets is declared to be the property of the
plaintiff-Math. The possession and control of the suit
H property with the place of worship (Meenakshiamman
PARASAMAYA KOLERINATHA MADAM, TIRUNELVELI v. 483
P.NATESAACHARI
temple) vests with the plaintiff Math; (ii) neither the A
Viswakarma community of Komaleeswararpet nor the
Committees of Management of the 'Meenakshiamman
Temple' own the suit property or the place of worship
therein. They were merely acting as the representatives
of the plaintiff Math; and (iii) the defendants and their B
agents and representatives shall deliver the entire suit
property with the place of worship with the installed idols
and all movables, to the plaintiff. [para 23) [503-C-G]
Case Law Reference:
c
ILR 58 Mad. 91 referred to para 8
1953 (2) MLJ 688 approved para 8
1955 (1) MLJ 60 approved para 8
approved D
2003 (1) MLJ 726 para 8
AIR 1970 SC 2025 relied on para 9
AIR 1972 SC 1716 relied on para 9
AIR 1981 SC 798 relied on para 10 E
ILR 6 (1883) Mad. 287 referred to para 11
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
8439 of 2001.
F
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.04.1999 of the
High Court of Judicature at Madras in O.S.A. No. 29 of 1994.
A.T.M. Sampth, P.N. Ramalingam and T.S. Shanthi for the
Appellant.
G
V. Ramasubramanian and A. Lakshmi Narayanan for the
Respondent. ·
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
484 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 11 S.C.R.
A R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J. 1. The appellant Math was the
plaintiff in a suit (C.S.No.2/1983) filed against the respondents
1 and 2 (defendants 1 and 2) and two others on the file of the
Madras High Court. The appellant math situated in Tirunelveli,
claims to be the owner of property bearing No ..16;
B Chandrabanu Street, Komaleeswararpet also described as
Komaleeswaranpettai, Chennai (described in the first schedule
to the plaint) known as Parasamaya Kolerinatha Madam and
several idols including those of Goddess Meenakshi, Lord
Vigneshwara, Lord Murugan installed therein (described in the
c second schedule to the plaint), together referred to as the 'suit
property'.
2. The plaint averments in brief are: The appellant is a
Math established several centuries ago at Tirunelveli by Swami
Anavaratha Soundaraja Perumal. The Mathadhipathi of the
D Math is elected for life by the Viswakarma community. In the
year 1922, a suit (OS No.58/1922 as the file ofthe Sub-court,
Tirunelveli) was filed for framing a scheme for regulating the
succession and administration of the plaintiff Math and its
properties. In the said suit, a scheme was framed by order
E dated 2.5.1925. The suit property was one of the properties
shown as vested in the Math in the final decree in the said
scheme suit. The suit property was owned by the plaintiff Math
for several centuries and the Head of the Math would stay there
during his visit to the city. His disciples were regularly using the
F premises and staying therein. The Math premises were being
managed by a nominee of the Math. The idol of Goddess
Meenakshi and the s.tatue of the Head of the Math with his
Padukas were installed by the Math in the suit property in the
eighteenth century and were worshipped by the disciples of the
G Math and other devotees. As the Headquarters of the Math was
situated at the far-away Tirunelveli, the Mathadhipathi had
entrusted the management of the said Math property to
nominated Agent/s who were the local elders of the
Viswakarma community. When a new Mathadhipathi was
H installed on 17.8.1981, he sent his agent to routinely enquire
PARASAMAYA KOLERINATHA MADAM, TIRUNELVELI v. 485
P.NATESAACHARI [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
about the affairs of the Math property in Chennai and learnt that A
the persons earlier managing the property had handed over the
management to defendants 1 and 2. When the Mathadhipathi
visited Chennai in 1982 and stayed in the suit property. One
R. Venugopal Achari who was appointed to look after the suit
property in the year 1963, informed the Mathadhipathi that he B
had handed over management to Kanagasabapathy Achary
who in turn handed over management to defendants. When the
Mathadhipathi sent word to defendants to come and discuss
the affairs of the Math, they did not turn up, but the community
people spoke to the Mathadipathi and made several c
complaints about the irregular and ineffective management by
defendants 1 and 2. Further inquiries revealed that defendants
1 and 2 were attempting to claim that the suit property with the
Meenakshiamman idol as a temple independent of the Math,
managed by the local Viswakarma community and had D
arranged for Kumbabishekam without the knowledge and
consent of the Mathadhipathi. In view of the above, the plaintiff
· Math filed the said suit and sought a declaration of title to the
suit property (with the idols and movables therein) and delivery
thereof. ·
E
3. Defendants 1 and 2 resisted the suit. They contended
that the suit property (describing it as the Meenakshiamman
temple) was a denominational temple that has been in
existence for the benefit of the members of the Viswakarma
community living in Komaleeswararpet in Chennai. The suit F
property was a temple and the Math did not 'exist' in the suit
property. The plaintiff Math had no connection with the suit
property. Neither the final decree nor the scheme in the scheme
suit (O.S.No.58of1922) relating to the plaintiff Mutt was binding
on the members of the community living in Komaleeswararpet G
in Chennai as they were not parties to the scheme suit. Though
the temple in Komaleeswararpet was dedicated to Goddess
Meenakshiamman, as Parasamaya Kolerinatha Swami was a
great saint and Guru of Viswakarrna community, the said
temple was also called by the name of the said Swami, but the H
486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011) 11 S.C.R.
A plaintiff Math has nothing to do with the suit property. The said
denominational temple was under the management of the
members of the Viswakarma community through their elected
representatives. In the beginning of the twentieth century, one
Arumuga Achary was managing the affairs of the temple. Later
B one C. V. Raju Achary was the trustee till 1938. From 1938,
Adhimoola Achary functioned as a Trustee with the assistance
of a committee of members. Kanagasabai Achari became the
Trustee in 1963 and in 1969, first and second defendants along
with one more person were elected as trustees and they were
c in management. The idols and statues in the temple were
installed by the members of the Viswakarma community of
Komaleeswararpet and not by the plaintiff Math. The community
performed the Kumbhabhishekam of the temple on 21.1.1983.
They filed a petition in the office of the Commissioner for
0 Religious and Charitable Endowments for framing a scheme
for the said temple by impleading the plaintiff math as a
respondent. The property did not belong to the Math and that
for more than a century, the property has been under the
absolute control of the members of the Viswakarrna community
E of Komaleeswararpet. As the suit property was a temple and
not a Math as defined under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious
and Charitable Endowments Act,.1959 (for short 'the Act') and
as the plaintiff Math have nothing to do with the property, the
suit was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed.
F 4. The High Court framed four issues. The main issue was
whether the plaintiff Math was entitled to the ownership of the
suit property and if so whether it was entitled to recover
possession. Both sides led oral and documentary evidence.
After detailed consideration of the several documents exhibited
G by the parties and the oral evidence, the learned Single Judge
who tried the suit, decreed the suit by judgment and decree
dated 20.4.1993. He held that there was abundant evidence to
show that the suit property belonged to the plaintiff Math and it
was not the property of Viswakarma community residing at
H Komaleeswararpet, Chennai. He also accepted the case of the
PARASAMAYA KOLERINATHA MADAM, TIRUNELVELI v. 487
P.NATESAACHARI [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
plaintiff Math that the Thirty Second Head of the plaintiff Math A
had installed the idol of the Goddess Meenakshi more than two
centuries ago. The learned Single Judge also referred to the
series of documents produced by the defendants themselves
which stated that Meenakshiamman temple was situated in
Parasamaya Kolerinatha Swami Math. The learned Single B
Judge held that merely because idols were installed and
worshipped in a Math premises, the property will not cease to
be a Math nor will it become a place of public religious worship.
Consequently the learned Single Judge decreed the suit
granting declaration of title and directing delivery of possession . c
of the suit property to the plaintiff Math.
5. Feeling aggrieved, defendants 1 and 2 filed an intra-
court appeal. A Division Bench of the High Court allowed the
said appeal (OSA No.29/1994) by the impugned judgment
dated 29.4.1999. The division bench held that the oral and D-+---
documentary evidence established the existence of . ·
Meenakshiamman temple in the suit property, possessing the
characteristics of a temple. The Managing Committee elected
from Viswakarma community was managing the said temple,
attending to its repairs, paying municipal taxes and conducting E
festivals. It held that the characteristics of a Math were absent
and the plaintiff Math had failed to prove that the affairs of the
Math alone were carried on in the premises; and as the
goddess Meenakshiamman was being worshipped by the
public and temple festivals were being regularly conducted, the F
finding of the learned Single Judge that the installation of idol
of Meenakshi did not extinguish the rights of the Math, was not
sustainable. The division bench held the suit property to be a
'temple' and consequently dismissed the suit. The said
judgment and decree is challenged in this appeal by special G
leave.
6. On the contentions urged three questions arise for
consideration :
(i) Whether the suit property belongs to the Plaintiff H
488 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 11 S.C.R
A Math?
(ii) Whether the Division Bench ignored the material
documents exhibited by plaintiffs and defendants in
holding that the suit property did not belong to the
plaintiff Math?
B
(iii) Whether the property of the Math ceased to belong
to the Math, as idols were installed therein are
worshipped by the members of Viswakarma
community, thereby converting it to a temple.
c
7. As all these questions are interconnected, we will
consider them together. We may at first refer to the definitions
of the words 'Math' and 'Temple' in the Act. Section 6(13) of
the Act defines 'Math' thus :
D "Math means a Hindu religious institution with properties
attached thereto and presided over by a person, the
succession to whose office devolves in accordance with
the direction of the founder of the institution or is regulated
by usage and (i) whose duty it is to engage himself in
E imparting religious instruction or rendering spiritual service;
or (ii) who exercises or claims to exercise spiritual
headship over a body of disciples: and includes places of
religious worship or instruction which are appurtenant to
the institution. xxx xxx"
F
Section 6(20) of the said Act defines the term "temple" as
"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
G community or of any section thereof, as a place of public
religious worship. xxx xxx"
8. The distinction between maths and temples, stated in
several judicial pronouncement has found statutory recognition
H in the aforesaid definitions. There are two necessary
PARASAMAYA KOLERINATHA MADAM, TIRUNELVELI v. 489
P.NATESAACHARI [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.)
ingredients for a structure or place to be described as a temple A
under the Act. First is its use as a place of public religious
· worship. Second is dedication of the structure or place to, or
for the benefit of, or use as of right by, the Hindu community or
a section thereof, as a place of public religious worship. The
mere fact that members of the public are allowed to worship B
at a place, will not make it a public temple. The Hindu
sentiments and the tenets of Hinduism do not normally exclude
worshippers from a place of worship, even when it is private
or part of a Math. Therefore, the crucial test is not whether the
members of the public are permitted to worship, but whether c
the worship by the members of the public is as of right by the
Hindu community or any section thereof, or whether a place has
been dedicated a place of public religious worship. [See : the
decision of the Privy Council in Mundacheri Koman vs.
Atchuthan - ILR 58 Mad. 91, the decisions of the Madras High 0
Court in Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board vs.
Deivanai Amma/ - 1953 (2) MLJ 688; Bodendraswami Mutt
vs. The President of the Board of Commissioners for Hindu
Religious Endowments - 1955 (1) MLJ 60; and The
Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment
(Admn.) Department vs. T.A. T. Srimath Gnaniar Madalayam E
- 2003 (1) MLJ 726).
9. In Goswami Shri Mahalaxmi Vahuji vs. Shah
Ranchhoddas Ka/idas (Dead) & Ors. -AIR 1970 SC 2025 and
T.D. Gopalan vs. The Commissioner of Hindu Religions and F
Charitable Endowments, Madras - AIR 1972 SC 1716, this
Court held that the origin of the temple, the manner in which
the affairs are managed, the gifts received by it, the rights
exercised by devotees in regard to worship therein and the
consciousness of the devotees themselves as to the character G
of the temple, are the factors which go to show whether a
~emple is a public temple or a private temple. It is also well-
settled that mere installation and consecration of idols in a
place will not make it a place of public religious worship. Where
the evidence shows that the disputed property retained the H
490 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 11 S.C.R.
A identity as a Math and where Gurupoojas (functions celebrating/
important days associated with the founder or head of the math)
are performed regularly, it will not lose the characteristic of a
Math and become a temple, merely because idols have been
installed and members of a section of Hindu community offer
B worship. In fact, this fact is now statutorily recognized in the
definition of Math in section 6(13) of the Act which makes it
clear that a Math includes any place of religious worship which
is appurtenant to the institution of a Math.
10. This Court in Radhakanta Deb vs. The Commissioner
C of Hindu Religious Endowments, Orissa [AIR 1981 SC 798]
on a conspectus of earlier authorities, laid down the following
tests to provide sufficient guidelines to determine on the facts
of each case, whether an endowment is of a private or a public
nature:
D
"Thus, on a conspectus of the authorities mentioned above,
the following tests may be laid down as providing sufficient
guidelines to determine on the facts of each case whether
an endowment is of a private or of a public nature :
E
(1) Where the origin of the endowment cannot be
ascertained, the question whether the user of the temple
by member of the public is as of right;
(2) The fact that the control and management vests either
F in a large body of persons or in the members of the public
and the founder does not retain any control over the
management. Allied to this may be a circumstance where
the evidence shows that there is provision for a scheme
to be framed by associating the members of the public at
G large;
(3) Where, however, a document is available to prove the
nature and origin of the endowment and the recitals of
the document show that the control and management of
the temple is retained with the founder or his
PARASAMAYA KOLERINATHA MADAM, TIRUNELVELI v. 491
P.NATESAACHARI [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
descendants, and that extensive properties are A
dedicated for the purpose of the maintenance of the
temple belonging to the founder himself, this will be a
conclusive proof to show that the endowment was of a
private nature;
B
(4) Where the evidence shows that the founder of the
endowment did not make any stipulation for offerings or
contributions to be made by members of the public to the
temple, this would be an important intrinsic circumstance
to indicate the private nature of the endowment."
c
(emphasis supplied)
11. We may also in this context refer to one of the earliest
judgments of the Madras High Court. In Thambu Chetti Subraya
Chetti vs. A. T. Arundel - ILR 6 (1883) Mad. 287. The question 0
considered therein was whether a building known as the
Dharma Sivachari Mattam could be considered to be a place
of public worship, as idols were installed in the said Math
premises, so that exemption from payment of municipal tax
could be availed. A Division Bench of the Madras High Court E
held:
"The original signification of the term Math or Matha is a
building or set of buildings in which Hindu religious
mendicants reside under a superior, who is called a
Mahant. This spiritual superior is regarded with veneration F
by the members of the sect, and is installed with some
ceremony, and not infrequently receives an honorific title.
Although a place of worship is not a necessary part of a
Math, such a place is, as may be expected, often found
in such institutions, and, though intended primarily for the G
use of the inmates, the public may be admitted to it, and
so this part of the building may become a place of
religious worship. A Hindu Math somewhat resembles a .
Catholic Monastery. From the circumstance that a portion
of it is not infrequently devoted to worship, and that the H
492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 11 S.C R.
A public may be admitted to it, the term Math has acquired
a secondary signification as a small temple.
Taking the whole of the facts mentioned in the judgment,
we see reason to think that the institution was a Math in
the original rather than the secondary sense of that
B
term ............. when the Mattam is in part of in whole used
for purposes other than those of public worship, it will be
liable to taxation."
(emphasis supplied)
c
12. Therefore, the fact that there are some idols installed
in a Math and members of the public offer worship to such idol
will not make it a place of public religious worship, that is, a
temple, if the other ingredients of a math exist or if it is
0 established to be a premises belonging to a math and used
by the math for its purposes. If the property in its origin was a
math property, it cannot be treated as a temple merely because
the math had installed idols and permitted worship by the
members of the community and the premises is used for
E rendering charitable and religious services. The Division Bench
has proceeded on the erroneous impression that existence of
an idol in a math property, when worshipped by the members
of the community, would convert the math property into a
temple.
F 13. The plaintiff (Parasamaya Ko/erinatha Madam)
specifically claims that the suit property belonged to the plaintiff
Mutt and produced several documents, the genuineness of
which was not under question. We may examine the said
evidence. Exhibit-P1 is the certified copy of the preliminary
G decree in the scheme suit (Ponnaivasan Achari & Ors. v.
Nelliappa Achari - OS No.58 of 1922, dated 29.3.1924) with
reference to Parasamaya Kolerinatha Madam situated at
Tirunelveli and its properties. The said preliminary decree
declares that Parasamaya Kolerinatha Madam situated at
Tirunelveli is a public religious and charitable foundation for the
PARASAMAYA KOLERINATHA MADAM, TIRUNELVELI v. 493
P.NATESAACHARI [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
benefit of five sections of Vishwakarma community of the Tamil A
districts of Southern India as also Tn~':ancore, Cochin and
Malabar, holding the properties rientioned in the plaint
schedule; that the office of Mathadhipathi of the said Mutt was
vacant; that it was necessary to frame the scheme for the
appointment of a Mathadhipathi and regulate succession to the B
office of the Mathadhipathi and vest the Mutt and such property
in such Mathadhipathi. The suit property was one of the
properties shown as belonging to the math. After such
preliminary decree, a draft scheme was filed and a scheme
was framed on 2.5.1925. Ex. P2 is the final decree dated c
10.9.1927 in the said suit (OS No.58/1922) which confirms that
a scheme has been framed for the said Parasamaya
Kolerinatha Madam, Tirunelveli on 2.5.1925; that the said
scheme provided for appointment of Mathadhipathi and
regulating the succession to the office of Mathadhipathi; that 0
as per the directions of the court, the disciples of the plaintiff
Mutt was convened on 5.9.1927 and Srimath Rajaratna Swami
was unanimously elected as the Mathadhipathi. The final decree
declared that the said Rajaratna Swamigal was the
Mathadhipathi of the institution in whom, according to the E
scheme settled in the preliminary decree, the properties
described in the said final decree vested. The first schedule
thereto enumerates the properties owned by the Math situated
at Tirunelveli and third schedule describes the agricultural lands
owned by the Math. The fourth schedule describes the
movables. The fifth schedule to the said decree describes the F
two properties situated outside Tirunelveli district - one property
in Travancore area and the property situated at
Komaleeswararpet, Chennai described as "Srimath
Parasamaya Kolerinatha Swami Madam Sri
Meenakshiamman temple and its assets". This document G
establishes beyond doubt that at a undisputed point of time,
the said suit property was the property belonging to the plaintiff
Math, vested in its Madhathipathi.
14. As against the said documents (Ex P1 and P2) which H
1
494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 11 S.C.R
A trace the title to more than 55 years before filing of the suit, the
defendants have not produced any title deeds. The contention
of the defendants that as neither they nor the trustees preceding
them, were parties to the scheme suit of 1922, the decree in
the said scheme suit was not binding on them, is not tenable.
B The defendants have produced documents to show that the suit
property and the temple therein are being managed by the
members of the community at Komaleeswararpet from around
1938 onwards. Obviously therefore the question of impleading
either defendants 1 and 2 or their predecessors in 1924 or
C 1925 did not arise. In fact plaintiff Math does not deny the fact
that idol of Meenakshiamman is installed in the suit property
and that the day to day management of the suit property was
entrusted to the Viswakarma community members in
Komaleeswararpet Chennai, as the head quarters of the Math
o was situated at Tirunelveli. The entrustment of management by
the Math to the elders/members of the Viswakarma Community
under the guidance and supervision of the Math, would not
divest the title of the Math to the property.
"
15. We may next refer to the undisputed documents which
E establish that the suit property where the idol of
Meenakshiamman is installed is the property of the plaintiff
Math. The most important of the documents, which would clinch
the case in support of the plaintiff Math is Ex. P16 which is a
certified copy of the petition dated 7.10.1978 under section
F 64(1) of the Act (OA No.102/1978) filed by defendants 1 and
2 and other managing committee members of
Meenakshiamman Temple before the Deputy Commissioner
for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
(Administration), Madras, for framing a scheme for
G appointment of Trustees and management of the temple. The
subject-matter of the petition is described as "In the matter of
Sri Meenakshiamman temple situated in Srimad
Parasamaya Kolarinatha Swamigal Mutt in 16, Chandra Banu
Street, Komaleeswaranpettai, Madras". In para 2 of the said
; petition, defendants 1 and 2 and other petitioners therein
PARASAMAYA KOLERINATHA MADAM, TIRUNELVELI v. 495
P.NATESAACHARI [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.)
averred: "There is a 1 temple dedicated to Sri A
Meenakshiamman in Chandrabanu Street,
Komaleeswaranpet, Madras-2. The institution in question is
located in a Mutt belonging to Srimath Parasamaya
Ko/arinathaswami. The said Swami was the head of the
members of the Viswakarma Community residing in 8
Komaleeswaranpet, from time immemorial." Having made
such admission, they however claimed that "though the temple
has been located in the Mutt, the Mutt is no longer in existence
. and that the institution in question has been considered as the
property of the members of the Viswakarma Community.......... c
the institution in question has always been under the
management of the members of the said community ever since
its inception." The said petition was dismissed.
16. Several other documents produced by plaintiff Math
issued by the defendants and their predecessors also establish D
that the suit property was always considered to be the property
of the Math. They are:
(i) Ex.P2 dated 16.10.1963 is a pamphlet issued by
R.Kanakasabhapathy Achari on behalf of Srimath E
Parasamaya Kolerinatha Swami Madam,
Komaleeswararpet Chennai, inviting devotees to
participate in the worship of Meenakshiammam
duri.ng Navarathri celebrations.
(ii) Ex. P6 is the Navrathri Mahotsava invitation/ F
pamphlet issued by R. Kanagasabapathy Achari
and others on 16.10.1963 describing the temple as
"Srimath Parasamaya Kolerinatha Swamigal
Madam - Vishwa Karma Samooha Aadheenam -
Sri Meenakshi temple". G·
(iii) Ex. P7 is an invitation pamphlet dated 2.5.1970 in
connection with Guru pooja offered to Nellai
Parasamaya Kolerin,atha Guru Swami and in that
connection aradhana to Meenakshiammam and
H
496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 11 S.C.R.
A poor feeding at the suit property.
(iv) Ex.PS is a receipt dated 10.5.1972 issued by first
defendant for a sum of Rs.3 towards Gurupooja and
the receipt is issued in the name of "Sri
Parasamaya Kolerinatha Math Sri
B
Meenakshiamman Temple".
(v) Ex. P9 is a programme schedule dated 21.9.1981
issued by the first defendant in regard to the
celebration of Navarathri festival at "Srimath
c Parasamaya Kolerinatha Swami Madam - Sri
Meenakshiamman Navarathri celebrations."
(vi) Ex. P13 is a pamphlet relating to a musical festival
to be held between 1.6.1990 to 5.6.1960 in
connection with the Kurnbabhishekham at "Chennai
D Komaleeswararpet, Chandrabanu Street, Nellai
Srimath Parasamaya Kolerinatha Math -- Sri
Meenakshi Sannidhi", issued by the Math Temple
Festival Committee on ~tie directions of Nellai
. Jagatguru Shrimath Parasamaya Kolerinathar
E Adeenam, 37th Jagatguru Swami Sivananda
Muneeswara.
(vii) Ex. P14 is an invitation pamphlet dated 25.5.1960
issued by the Managing Committee of "Nellai
F Jagatguru Srimath Parasamaya Kolerinathar
Adeenam" regarding Sri Meenakshiamman Idol
Procession in Komaleeswararpet in the presence
of Nellai Jagatguru Parasamaya Kolerinathar 37th
Jagatguru Swami Sivananda Muneeswarar.
G (viii) Ex. P15 is a pamphlet dated 6.7.1960 issued by
the person-in-charge Parasamaya Kolerinatha
Madam, No.11, Chandrabanu Street,
Komaleeswaranpet, Chennai, in connection with
the celebration of the coronation of the ·37th
H Peetadhipathi Jagatguru Parasamaya Kolerinathar.
PARASAMAYA KOLERINATHA MADAM, TIRUNELVELI v. 497
P.NATESAACHARI [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
(ix) Ex.P17 is the pamphlet dated 21.3.1960 issued by A
the management of Parasamaya Kolerinatha
Madam mutt, Kamaleeswaranpettai in connection
with a festival in regard to Godess
Meenakshiamman installed two centuries earlier by
32nd Jagatguru Srinath Swami Anavaradacharya. B
(x) Ex. P18 dated 18.7.1960 is the invitation to the
. disciples and followers of Shrimath Parasamaya
Kolerinatha Swami to have darshan of the Swami
at Parasamaya Kelarinatha Swami Math, No.11,
Chandrabanu Street, Komaleeswararpet, Chennai. c
It is not necessary to refer to other documents exhibited by
plaintiff math, most of which relate to a period subsequent to
the filing of the suit.
17. The defendants marked Ex 01 to D 42. Most of the D
documents related to the festivals conducted in connection with
the Meenakshiamman temple or regarding the handing over of
management of the temple from one managing committee to
another managing committee. Many relate to the period
subsequent to the suit and not relevant. But several of them E
relate to the undisputed period before the suit and clearly prove
the case of the plaintiff Math. We may refer to some of
defendants' exhibits:
(i) Ex. 01 dated 7.4.1938 is the pamphlet issued by the
F
person-in-charge of the suit property - Adhimoola Achari
in regard to appointment of Committee for managing "Sri
Meenakshi Temple situated in Chennai
Komaleeswaranpettai Srimath Parasamaya Kolerinatha
Swami Math".
G
(ii) Ex. DB is a pamphlet dated 16.10.1941 by Adhimoola
Achari, 'Dharmakartha' of the temple in regard to a festival
at Sri Meenakshi Temple at Sri Parasamaya Kolerinatha
Madam, Kamaleeswaranpet, Chennai.
H
498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011) 11 S.C.R.
A. (iii) Ex. D16 is a pamphlet about the appointment of
· Managing Committee of Sri Meenakshiamman temple at
Srimath Parasamaya Kolerinatha Swami Madam for the
term 17.6.1945 to 5.3.1950.
(iv) Ex. 024 is the Invitation Pamphlet dated 10.5.1972 in
8 connection with Guru Pooja of the founder of the plaintiff
Math at the suit property.
(v) Ex. 032 is a pamphlet dated 5.10.1966 issued by
Kanagasabapathy Achari in regard to Navrathri festival in
c Meenakshi Temple at Srimath Parasamaya Kolerinatha
Madam.
18. These documents irrefutably establish that the temple
was a part of the Math; that the Math appointed a local elder
· of Viswakarma Community at Komaleeswaranpet to manage
D the suit property and the place of worship therein, that the local
elder handed over management to successive elected
managing committees (from the Viswakarma community at
Komaleeswaranpet, Chennai) to be in day to day
management; that the defendants and their predecessors who
E were the members of the Managing Committee of the temple,
had always accepted and described the place of worship as
being a part of Parasamaya Kolerinatha Guruswamigal
Madam, that is plaintiff-Mutt. When some of the pamphlets
, exhibited by defendants describe the place of worship in. the
F Math property as Meenakshiamman 'koil', the word was not
used as referring to a 'temple' as defined in the Act, but as a
place of worship always as part of and belonging to the plaintiff
math.
19. The oral evidence the second defendant- T.R.Nataraj
G Achary (OVl/1) also establishes that Meenakshiamman Koil
was part of plaintiff Math. In the examination-in-chief, he states
that the suit property is Meenakshiamman temple which has
been administered by a group of trustees elected/appointed by
the Viswakarma community in Komaleeswararpet and the
H
PARASAMAYA KOLERINATHA MADAM, TIRUNELVELI v. 499
P.NATESAACHARI [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
temple belongs to the Viswakarma community of A
Komaleeswararpet. However he also stated that Srimat
Parasamaya Kolerinatha Swamigul, who lived several centuries
ago in Tirunelveli, was the Guru of Viswakarma community and
there is a statue of the said Swami in the temple; that a sect of
Viswakarma community regularly conducts Guru Pooja in honour B
of the founder of the Math in the premises. He extract below
some of his answers which establish the case of the plaintiff
Math:
"Q. Did the present Head of Mutt or the previous Head of
Mutt stay in the Meenakshi temple ? C
A. The present Head of the Mutt stayed only for one and a
half hour and the previous Head of the Mutt might have
come and stayed."
tz_'.~
"Q: This notice (Ex.D.24 and Ex.P.7) was issued by 64 D
Thalaikettu Viswakarma Community people, is it so?
A: Yes. This pooja is being conducted by them,
Q: See Ex. D.24 and Ex.P.7, there is a 'song in the
beginning of the matter. E
A: Yes.
Q: The Guru referred to in both the notification in the song
is Nellai Parasamaya Kolarinatha Swamigal, is it not?
F
A: Yes.
Q: 64 Thalaikattu Viswakarma Community are residing in
Madras, is it so?
A: Yes. They are living in Madras. G
Q: 64 Thalaikattu Viswakarma Community are celebrating
(Guru) poojas in the suit property, is it not?
A: Yes.
H
500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 11 S.C.R.
A Q: That Guru Pooja is in respect of Nellai Parasamaya
Kolarinatha Swamigal?
A: Yes.
Q: Ex.P.7 was issued after you claimed to have been a
B trustee of the suit property?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you know that the present suit has been filed by
Nellai Parasamaya Kolarinatha Swamigal?
c A: Yes. I am aware.
Q: There is a stone image· of Nellai Parasamaya
Kolarinatha in the suit property?
A: Yes.
D
Q: This image in the suit property is that of the man you
are referring to?
A: Yes.
E Q: The chappals ('Padukas') owned by him are in the suit
property?
A: Yes.
Q: Ex.P .9 was a notice issued by you for Navarathiri
F Festival in the suit property in 1981. Your name is also
there?
A: Yes. My name is also there.
Q: In this document the suit property is described as
G Parasamaya Kolarinatha Swamigal Madam?
A: Yes.
Q: So from 1938 to 1981 suit property is described as
Parasamaya Kolarinatha Madam?
-I
PARASAMAYA KOLERINATHA MADAM, TIRUNELVELI v. 501
P.NATESAACHARI [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
A: Yes. It is from the beginning known as Parasamaya A
Kolarinatha Swamigal Madam.
Q: This document Ex.D.30 (Page No.9) is also filed by
you?
A: Yes. B
Q: There also (Page 8 of Ex.D.30) it is referred that
Kolarinatha Swamigal installed the Meenakshi Amman
Idol.
A: Yes." c
20. The learned Single Judge has referred to oral and
documentary evidence in detail and recorded a categorical
finding that the property belonged to the plaintiff Mutt and that
the claim of the defendants that the plaintiff Math had nothing D
to do with the suit property was false and untenable. On the
other hand, the D'ivision Bench failed to consider the
significance of these relevant documents. It inferred that the suit
property ceased to be a Math property and became a 'temple'
as defined in section 6(20) of the Act, because the
Meenakshiamman idol was installed in the Math property and E
the members of the community were offering worship and
festivals were conducted and celebrated by the Managing
Committee and Municipal taxes were being paid by the
Managing Committee. But it failed to notice that mere existence
of idols in Math premises or worship thereof by the public would F
not convert a property belonging to the Math into a temple. It
failed to notice that installation of the idol Meenakshiamman
and installation of the statue of Sri Swami Parasamaya
Kolerinatha Guru and conducting the festivals and Gurupoojas
were part of Math's activities being held and conducted in the G
name of the plaintiff Mutt or its Mathadhipathi.
21. The oral and documentary evidence produced by the
plaintiff and defendants clearly and categorically establish the
following factual positions factual positions :
H
502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS· [2011] 11 S.C.R.
A (i) The suit property belonged to the plaintiff Math;
(ii) The Meenakshiamman idol was installed by the
32nd Mathadhipathi of the Math in suit property, in
the eighteenth century. There is nothing to show that
installation was with the object of dedicating the
B
premises as a place of public religious worship. On
the other hand the suit property was and always
been a property belonging to the plaintiff Math,
where the members of Vishwakarma community
were permitted to offer worship to the idol of
c Meenakshiamman.
(iii) The suit property is used regularly to celebrate Guru
pooja in honour of the founder of the Math and the
Mathadhipathis. The premises was used by the
D Mathadhipathi of the plaintiff Math and his disciples
and followers for their stay at Chennai.
(iv) The head of plaintiff Math had directed the
Viswakarma community in Komaleeswararpettai,
Chennai to manage the day to day affairs of the suit
E property including provision for worship of idols in
the property by constituting a Managing Committee.
The Managing Committee was managing the Math
property and the temple therein, recognizing and
accepting that they were part of plaintiff Math.
,F
(v) In the year 1978, the defendants and others in
management attempted unsuccessfully to assert
that the premises is exclusively a temple belonging
to the Viswakarma community members at
Komaleeswararpet and not the plaintiff Math.
""'_,
In view of the above findings, all the three questions raised are
answered In favour of the appellant Math.
22. As the management through a local committee has
been in vogue for several decades, it wo,uld be appropriate if
~
PARASAMAYA KOLERINATHA MADAM, TIRUNELVELI v. 503
P.NATESAACHARI [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
the same system is continued for the efficient management of A
the suit property and the place of worship. The Managing
Committee should consist of a Chairman nominated by the
Mathadhipathi of plaintiff Math and six members (of whom three
shall be nominated by plaintiff Math and the remaining three
shall be elected by the Viswakarma community at 8
Komaleeswararpet, Chennai). The said Managing Committee
will be accountable to the plaintiff Math and act under its
directions.
23. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed, the
judgment and decree of the division bench of the High Court C
is set aside and the judgment and decree of the learned Single
Judge decreeing the suit is restored as under:
(i) The suit property with the installed idols and other
assets is declared to be the property of the plaintiff D
Math. The possession. and control of the suit
property with the place of worship
(Meenakshiamman temple) vests with the plaintiff
Math.
(ii) Neither the Viswakarma community of E
Komaleeswararpet or the Committees of
Management of the 'Meenakshiamman Temple'
own the suit property or the place of worship
therein. They were merely acting as the
representatives of the plaintiff Math. F
(iii) The defendants and their agents and
representatives shall deliver the entire suit property
with the place of worship with the installed .idols and
all movables, to the plaintiff Math forthwith.
G
(v) Parties to bear their respective costs.
R.P. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Math"Sign in to search