Madras High Court
The vs Religious And Charitable ... on 27 April, 2022
C.M.P. No.7239 of 2022
in S.A. No.37 of 2020
C.M.P. No.7239 of 2022
in S.A. No.37 of 2020
S.S.SUNDAR, J.,
Though the above second appeal is admitted, from the facts narrated in
the affidavit and as borne out of records, this Court is able to find the
following facts:
The appellants have filed a suit in O.S. No.719 of 2008 in a
representing capacity i.e. for themselves and on behalf of Vanniar Community
people of Kandhampatti, Bodinaickenpatti Village, Salem, for declaration that
the suit temple is a denominational temple exclusively belonging to and
managed by Vanniar Community of Kandhampatti and for consequential
injunction. The case of the petitioners was seriously disputed and a detailed
written statement was filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowments Department which was adopted by
defendants 1,2 & 4. From the averments made in the written statement, it is
seen that the the members of petitioners' community have earlier filed an
application in O.A. No.3 of 1980 before the Deputy Commissioner,
Coimbatore, under Section 63(b) of Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments (hereinafter referred as “H.R. & C.E.”) Act, claiming hereditary
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P. No.7239 of 2022
in S.A. No.37 of 2020
right over the trusteeship of the temple. It is further stated that the application
was dismissed on 30.03.1981 and an appeal in A.P. No.32 of 1982 before the
Commissioner, under Section 69 of the H.R. & C.E. Act was also dismissed
on 06.04.1983. It is the specific case of the respondents that the non-
hereditary trustees are being appointed in respect of the temple. The case of
petitioners that the petitioners' community alone was in management of the
temple was specifically denied. Thereafter, another application was filed
under Section 64(1) of H.R. & C.E. Act before the Joint Commissioner for
framing a scheme of administration for the suit temple so as to enable the
members of petitioners' community to administer the temple. The said
application under Section 64 (1) of the H.R. & C.E. Act was dismissed by the
Joint Commissioner on 05.01.2000. After the application under Section 64 (1)
of the Act was disposed of on 05.01.2000, the petitioners have filed the suit.
2. Though the petitioners have stated so many facts in their plaint in
support of their claim that the temple is a religious denomination, this Court is
able to see that the averments found in the plaint do not support the
petitioner's claim that the temple is denominational in character. Without any
understanding the scope or status of a religious institution to be treated as a
religious denomination, the suit is filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P. No.7239 of 2022
in S.A. No.37 of 2020
3. Though the trial Court granted a decree of declaration declaring the
suit temple as one belonged and managed by Vanniyar Community of
Kandhampatti, Bodinaickenpatti Village, Salem Taluk and the consequential
injunction, the decree granted by the trial Court not the prayer in the plaint.
In short, the petitioners wanted a declaration that the suit temple is a
denominational temple and the declaration granted by the trial Court was that
the suit temple exclusively belonged to and managed by Vanniyar Community
of Kandhampatti. The prayer that is granted by the trial Court is unsustainable
having regard to the fact that the earlier attempt made by the members of
petitioners' community declaring the office of trusteeship as hereditary is
dismissed by the Joint Commissioner, in the application filed by the
petitioners' Community members under Section 63 (b) of H.R. & C.E. Act.
Similarly the application filed by the members of the petitioners' community
for framing of scheme on the ground that the members of Vanniyar
Community of Kandhampatti are entitled to administer the temple, was also
dismissed. In those circumstances, the trial Court, unmindful of the legal
consequences of orders passed by the competent authority exercising his
power under the provisions of H.R & C.E. Act, granted a decree as indicated
above.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P. No.7239 of 2022
in S.A. No.37 of 2020
4. The lower appellate Court, on the appeal filed by the respondents 1
to 4 herein, reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed
the suit. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court,
the above Second Appeal is preferred.
5. During the pendency of the above appeal, this application to grant
permission to conduct festival of Arulmigu Sri Dhrupathi Amman,
Kandampatti, Salem, from 22.04.2022 to 11.05.2022, pending disposal of the
appeal.
6. First of all, the status of temple as claimed by the petitioners had
been rejected by the lower Courts. No statutory suit is filed challenging the
order of Joint Commissioner refusing to declare the office of trusteeship as
hereditary. The status of temple as a public religious institution is declared by
the H.R. & C.E. Department long back and the application for framing of
scheme also was rejected by specifically holding that the temple is not under
the exclusive control of a particular community.
7. This Court directed the appellants to serve notice on the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of H.R. & C.E. Department to respond to this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P. No.7239 of 2022
in S.A. No.37 of 2020
application seeking permission to conduct festival. Learned Special
Government Pleader appearing for the respondents produced before this Court
a letter dated 27.04.2022 sent to the Special Government Pleader by the
Assistant Commissioner, Salem.
8. Though this Court is not inclined to give much importance to the
instructions for want of time to give opportunity to file counter, took note of
some of the facts which are not disputed. Since the petitioners claim exclusive
right to administer the temple, permission to the petitioners to conduct the
festival will lead to further complications as it appears that several facts in
relation to the status of the temple and the disputes have not been disclosed by
the petitioners. It appears that there has been law and order problem earlier
and the Scheduled Caste Community people were not allowed for
worshipping the temple. The temple is under control of H.R. & C.E.
Department and the temple is administered by an Executive Officer, through
non-hereditary trustees appointed by H.R. & C.E. The petitioners can
approach the Joint Commissioner for permission if it is in respect of any
privilege or right in respect of performing pooja or conducting festival. In the
present case, the status of temple is public temple and it is admitted. The fact
that the temple is under the administration of non-hereditary trustee appointed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P. No.7239 of 2022
in S.A. No.37 of 2020
by the respondents, is also not in dispute. In such circumstances, this Court is
unable to discard or ignore the statements on facts as seen from the
communication received by the learned Special Government Pleader from the
Assistant Commissioner.
9. It is admitted that an Executive Officer is appointed for the
administration of the temple. Since it is reported that serious communal clash
had arisen earlier between the Vanniar Community and the Scheduled Cast
community, following which the temple itself was closed during the year
2007, it is further noticed that a Writ Petition in W.P. No.30557 of 2007 was
filed by a political figure representing Dalit people which was ordered by this
Court on 28.08.2008 to assure unrestricted public worship at the temple.
Since the communication received from the Assistant Commissioner clearly
indicate the law and order situation, this Court is not inclined to entertain this
petition. There are other technical reasons for not entertaining this petition.
For the present, it is not necessary to deal with every other reasons except
pointing out that the findings of authorities earlier would suggest that the
temple is a public temple. The right to worship in any public temple is
guaranteed. However, if a person wants an exclusive right to administer the
temple, he should either be a hereditary trustee appointed or recognised or the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P. No.7239 of 2022
in S.A. No.37 of 2020
temple should be a denominational temple. Though these appears to be a
dispute between the petitioners and other community people, the suit is filed
without impleading anyone who has a rival claim. Hence this Court is unable
to find any bonafides in this petition.
10. However, it is open to the petitioners to give a representation before
the Joint Commissioner who may consider the feasibility for conducting the
festival after issuing notice to persons interested subject to conditions. Even if
the official of H.R. & C.E. Department reject such representation, the
petitioners may pursue their remedy in the manner known to law. However,
This Court is not inclined to grant any interim order in favour of petitioners
merely because the above second appeal is pending. For the reasons stated
above, this Court finds no merit in the petition and hence, dismissed.
28.04.2022
bkn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P. No.7239 of 2022
in S.A. No.37 of 2020
S.S.SUNDAR, J.,
bkn
C.M.P. No.7239 of 2022
in S.A. No.37 of 2020
28.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
