Madras High Court
Narayanan vs Ulaganathan on 9 February, 2021
CRP.PD.No.1661 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.02.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRP.(PD).No. 1661 of 2017
and
C.M.P.No. 7813 of 2017
1.Narayanan
2.Anandakumar
3.Arumugam
4.Natarajan
5.Selvaraj
6.Vadivel
7.Senthilkumar
8.G.Bangarusamy ... Petitioners
vs.
1.Ulaganathan
2.Venkatachalam
3.Manimaran
4.Hindu Religious Endowments Department,
Rep. by Assistant Commissioner.
5.Inspector,
Hindu Religious Endowments Department,
Namakkal. ... Respondents
PRAYER: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to allow the Civil Revision Petition and set-
aside the Order and Decretal Order dated 03.03.2017 made in I.A.No.194 of
2016 in O.S.No.200 of 2015 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court,
Namakkal.
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.No.1661 of 2017
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Thirugnanam
For Respondent : Mr.T.Dhanyakumar (For R1 to R3)
Mr.S.Jaganathan (For R4 and R5)
Government Advocate (CS)
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is directed as against the fair and decretal
order dated 03.03.2017 made in I.A.No.194 of 2016 in O.S.No.200 of 2015
on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Namakkal thereby
dismissing the petition for rejection of plaint.
2. The petitioners are the defendants 1 to 8 and the respondents 1 to 3
are the plaintiffs in the suit. The respondents 1 to 3 filed a suit in
O.S.No.200 of 2015 for a declaration that the suit temple is a public temple
and consequential injunction from interfering with the administration and
also performing poojas on the suit temple by the officials of the Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowment Department. They also sought for
injunction as against the petitioners herein not to restrain the public from
worshipping the God and also restraining them from doing administration
and performing poojas as their own temple. Therefore, the petitioners filed a
petition in I.A.No.194 of 2016 for rejection of plaint on the ground that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.No.1661 of 2017
Section 63(a) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), the
Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner of the Hindu Religious
and Charitable Endowments Department shall alone have power to inquire
into and to decide whether the suit temple is a public or a private temple.
Therefore, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under Section 108 of
the Act.
3. The Court below dismissed the petition in I.A.No.194 of 2016 for
the reason that the petitioners herein not denied that the temple under the
management and possession of the Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department. Therefore, the suit temple is assumed that it is a
Public temple. The right of the respondents 1 to 3 herein are civil in nature
and as such the suit is very much maintainable.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the suit
temple was constructed by donation collected from the people of NGGO
Colony and respondents 1 to 3 herein have no right to claim to obstruct the
performance of poojas and conducting festivals in the suit temple by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.No.1661 of 2017
petitioners and people of NGGO Colony. At the same time, the respondents
1 to 3 cannot have any objection to manage and administer the suit temple
by the petitioners herein. He further submitted that admittedly, the
respondents 1 to 3 filed suit for declaration declaring that the suit temple is
a public temple and also framed decree of permanent injunction. It is not
maintainable as per Section 63(a) of the Act, the Joint Commissioner or the
Deputy Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Department shall alone have power to inquire into and to decide whether
the suit temple is a public or a private temple. He further submitted that it is
barred under Section 108 of the Act from filing suit to decide the issue of
public or private temple. In support of his contention, he relied on the
judgements of this Court in Inspector/Fit Person, H.R. and C.E.,
Arulmighu Sundaresa Gnaniar Koil, Dharapuram -vs- Amirthammal
reported in (2003) 1 MLJ 435 and in P.K.Vasudevan Pillai -vs-
Manikandan Nair reported in (2011) 1 CTC 55.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 would submit
that the suit temple is a public temple. Now, the respondents 1 to 3 are
prevented by the petitioners to worship the suit temple. Admittedly, the suit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.No.1661 of 2017
temple is administered by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Department and as such, it can be construed as a public temple and all are
having equal rights to worship the suit temple. When there is a dispute in
respect of worshipping the temple and performing poojas, this right is a
civil in nature and it can be agitated before the Civil Court. Since the Civil
Court only has got jurisdiction to try the issue in respect the civil rights.
Therefore, the Trial Court rightly dismissed the petition for plaint and
prayed for dismissal of the civil revision petition.
6. Heard Mr.R.Thirugnanam, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr.T.Dhanyakumar, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 and
Mr.S.Jaganathan, learned Government Advocate (CS) for the respondents 4
and 5 and perused the materials placed on record apart from the pleadings
of the parties.
7. The respondents 1 to 3 filed a suit in O.S.No. 200 of 2015 for the
following reliefs:-
"m) jhth nfhapyhdJ midj;Jg; bghJkf;fSf;Fk; ghj;jpag;gl;l
bghJ nfhapy; vd;W tpsk;g[if bra;Jk;. mjd; bjhlh;rr; pahf 9.10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.No.1661 of 2017
gpujpthjpfs; jhth nfhapypy; tpnrc&';fs; bra;tija[k;. epht; hfk;
bra;tija[k; 1 Kjy; 8 gpujpthjpfnsh. mth;fsJ Ml;fnsh
jilnah. ,il";rnyh bra;af;TlhJ vd;W epue;ju
cWj;Jf;fl;lis gpwg;gpj;Jk;.
M) jhth nfhapypy; bghJkf;fs; tHpgLtij gpujpthjpfnsh mth;fsJ
Ml;fnsh vt;tpj jilnah. ,il";rnyh bra;af;TlhJ vd;W
epue;ju cWj;Jf;fl;lis gpwgpjJ ; k;.
,) jhth nfhapiy 1 Kjy; 8 gpujpthjpfs; jdpg;gl;l Kiwapy;
eph;thfk; bra;af;TlhJ vd;w epue;ju cWj;Jf;fl;lis gpwg;gpjJ; k;.
<) jhth bryt[j; bjhif gpujpthjpfshy; thjpfSf;F fpilf;Fk;
goa[k;.
c) ,d;Dk; rK:fk; nfhh;l;lhuth;fSf;F a[f;jkha; njhd;Wk; ,ju
ghpfhu';fis mspj;Jk; of;hp gpwg;gpff; ; ntz;Lkha; thjpfs;
tzf;fkha; gpuhh;j;jpf;fpwhh;fs;/”
8. According to the respondents 1 to 3/plaintiffs, the suit temple is
administered and managed by the petitioners herein. Further, they stated
that the temple was constructed by donation collected from public and
therefore, the suit temple is a public temple. The issue before the Civil
Court is that the suit temple is whether a public or a private temple. In this
regard, it is relevant to extract the provisions under Section 63(a) of the Act,
as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.No.1661 of 2017
“63. Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner] to
decide certain disputes and matters:- Subject to the rights of
suit or appeal hereinafter provided, [the Joint Commissioner or
the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be], shall have power
to inquire into and decide the following disputes and matters:-
(a) whether an institution is a religious institution.”
9. Accordingly, the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner
of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department shall alone
have power to inquire into and to decide whether the suit temple is a public
or private temple.
10. When it being so, Section 108 of the Act is clearly barred the
jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try the above issue. It is also relevant to
extract the provisions under Section 108 of the Act, as follows:-
“108. Bar of suits in respect of administration or
management of religious institutions, etc.-No suit or other legal
proceeding in respect of the administration or management of a
religious institution or any other matter or dispute for
determining or deciding which provision is made in this Act
shall be instituted in any Court of Law, except under, and in
conformity with, the provisions of this Act.”
11. Accordingly, no suit can be filed in respect of the administration
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.No.1661 of 2017
or management of a religious instruction or any other matter or dispute for
determining or deciding for which provision is made under the Act. In this
regard, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgement in
Inspector/Fit Person, H.R. and C.E., Arulmighu Sundaresa Gnaniar
Koil, Dharapuram -v-. Amirthammal reported in (2003) 1 MLJ 435 in
which the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has held as follows:-
“11. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on the
judgment of this Court in L.P.A.Nos.103 of 1994 and 266 of
1995 in which on facts it was found that the suit property was a
'samadhi' and therefore, was held to be not a religious
institution as defined under Section 6(18) of the H.R. & C.E.
Act. In that case, the plaintiff in the suit had in fact applied to
the Deputy Commissioner under Section 63(a) of the H.R. &
C.E. Act for a declaration that a suit institution is only a
'samadhi' and not a religious institution. That petition was
allowed. The Department's challenge to this was unsuccessful
and in the Letters Patent Appeal too, it was held that it was
only a ' samadhi'. Therefore, that judgment really does not help
the case of the respondent. On the contrary, it only reinforces
the appellant's case that the respondent ought to have
approached the authorities first.
12. In the present case though there is a reference in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.No.1661 of 2017
plaint to the suit property being a 'samadhi' the relief asked is
for a declaration that the property is not a public temple. This
is a dispute that falls under Section 63(a) of the H.R. & C.E.
Act. It is not an incidental question that is asked to be decided
in the suit, but the only question. Therefore, this dispute ought
to have been adjudicated by the authority under the Act and as
pointed out by the learned Special Government Pleader, the Act
also provides for a detailed enquiry.
13. The suit must therefore, be dismissed as not
maintainable since the question of maintainability is answered
in favour of the appellant, we are not dealing with the merits of
the case. It is open to the respondents to approach the
authorities for a decision in this regard who shall consider this
dispute afresh and decide the same in accordance with law.
The letters patent appeal is therefore, allowed and the suit is
dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.”
12. He also relied on the judgement in P.K.Vasudevan Pillai -vs-
Manikandan Nair reported in (2011) 1 CTC 55, in which the learned
Single Judge of this Court has held as follows:-
“26. A reading of the above provision shows that a suit
or other legal proceeding, in respect of the administration or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.No.1661 of 2017
management of a religious institution or any other matter or
dispute for which provision is made under the Act, is barred.
Therefore, we have see (i) whether the dispute on hand is one
relating to the administration or management of a religious
institution or (ii) whether the dispute on hand is one for the
determination of which, a provision is made under the Act.
28. Therefore, to invoke the bar under Section 108 of the
Act, the institution whose right of administration or
management is in question, should be a religious institution
within the meaning of Section 6(18) and/or a temple within the
meaning of Section 6 (20). We are not concerned here, with the
other religious institutions such as math or specific endowment.
Since the definition of the expression "temple" under Section
6(20), means only a place of public religious worship, a private
temple may not come within its purview.
29. But as pointed out earlier, Section 108 has two limbs.
The first relates to the administration or management of a
religious institution. The second relates to any other mater or
dispute, for the determination of which, a provision is made in
the Act. The first limb is not attracted in this case since the very
question that arises for consideration is whether the temple is a
public or a private one and whether it will fall within the
definition of the expression "temple" under Section 6(20).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.No.1661 of 2017
31. Therefore, Section 63 of the Act, empowers the Joint
Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, to inquire into and
decide the dispute whether an institution is a religious
institution. In other words, he is empowered to decide whether
an institution is a math or temple or specific endowment, so as
to fall within the definition of the expression "religious
institution" under Section 6(18). Consequently, he is entitled to
decide whether it is a temple within the meaning of Section
6(20).
32. Therefore, it appears, prima facie, that the question
taken up by both the Courts below, as to whether it is a public
or a private temple, is a question which could be decided by the
Joint/Deputy Commissioner under Section 63(a) of the Act.
Once it is found that the Joint/Deputy Commissioner is
empowered to decide the question whether a temple is a private
or public temple, then the second limb of Section 108 gets
attracted. In other words, a provision is made under Section 63
(a) of the Act, for deciding the question whether a temple is a
public or a private temple. Consequently, the bar under Section
108 appears to get attracted.
43. In Inspector/Fit Person, HR&CE, Arulmighu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.No.1661 of 2017
Sundaresa Gnaniar Koil, Dharapuram vs. Amirthammal {2003
(1) MLJ 435}, a Division Bench of R.Jayasimha Babu and
Mrs.Prabha Sridevan, J.J., referred to the two decisions of the
Supreme Court in State of Madras vs. Kunnakudi Melamatam
alias Annathana Matam {AIR 1965 SC 1570} and in Sri
Vedagiri Lakshmi Narasimha Swami vs. Induru Pattabhirami
Reddi {AIR 1967 SC 78}. After pointing out that there was no
conflict of views between the decisions in Kunnakudi
Melamatam and Sri Vedagiri Lakshmi Narasimha Swami, the
Division Bench held that a suit for a declaration that the
property is not a public temple, would fall under Section 63(a)
and that it was not an incidental question and that therefore,
the dispute should be adjudicated only by the competent
authority in the first instance.
45. Therefore, it cannot be said that the question whether
it is a public or a private temple arose merely incidentally to
the main issues involved in the suit. The main issue that arose
in the suit itself was whether it was a public or a private temple.
The question whether the temple is a private or a public one,
did not arise as an issue ancillary to any main issue. The case
pleaded by the plaintiffs and the reliefs sought for by them,
depended entirely upon the answer to the question whether it
was a public or a private temple. Such a question which
constituted the very life line of the case, cannot be said to be an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.No.1661 of 2017
incidental or ancillary issue.”
13. In the above judgements, this Court held that the main issue arose
in the suit itself is whether the suit temple is a public or a private temple.
The question whether the temple is a private or a public one, did not arise as
an issue ancillary to any main issue. The case pleaded by the plaintiffs and
the reliefs sought for by them, depended entirely upon the answer to the
question whether it was a public or a private temple. Such a question which
constituted the very life line of the case, cannot be said to be an incidental
or ancillary issue. Therefore, it would fall under Section 63(a) of the Act
and that it was not an incidental question and therefore, the dispute should
be adjudicated only by the competent authority.
14. In the case on hand, the prayer in the suit is for a declaration
declaring that the suit temple is a public temple. When the main issue in the
suit itself is whether it is a public or a private temple. Therefore, the Civil
Court has no jurisdiction to try the issue. As stated supra, under Section
63(a) of the Act, the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner of
the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department is empowered
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.No.1661 of 2017
to inquire into and decide the dispute whether an institution is a religious
institution or not and whether the temple is within the meaning of Section
6(20) of the Act.
15. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted. In fact, the
order passed by the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner of the
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department is appealable one
under Section 69 of the Act before the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments Department. The order passed by the
Commissioner is appealable one under Section 70 of the Act before the
Civil Court. Therefore, the Civil Court has got jurisdiction only under
Section 70 of the Act as against the order passed the Commissioner, Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowments Department.
16. In view of the above discussion, the Trial Court has no
jurisdiction to try the issue raised by the respondents 1 to 3 herein and the
suit itself is not maintainable. Accordingly, the order dated 03.03.2017
made in I.A.No.194 of 2016 in O.S.No.200 of 2015 on the file of Additional
District Munsif Court, Namakkal, is set aside. The Civil Revision Petition is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.No.1661 of 2017
allowed. However, the respondents 1 to 3 are at liberty to approach the
concerned authority under Section 63(a) of the Act in the manner known to
law. No Costs. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
09.02.2021
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
dm
To
1.The Additional District Munsif Court,
Namakkal.
2.The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious Endowments Department,
3.The Inspector,
Hindu Religious Endowments Department,
Namakkal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.No.1661 of 2017
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
dm
CRP.(PD).No. 1661 of 2017
09.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
