Madras High Court

Archakar Sthanika Sangam Of ... vs V.Rajamanickam Desikar on 16 August, 2022

A.S(MD)No.2 of 2012

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 16.08.2022

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

A.S(MD)No.2 of 2012
and
C.M.P(MD)No.11821 of 2016

Archakar Sthanika Sangam of Archakas,
Doing Service in Hill Temple,
Palani,
Through its President. ... Appellant

vs.

1. V.Rajamanickam Desikar
2. K.D.Thangavel
(Respondents 1 and 2 for themselves and as the office bearers of
Arulmigu Dhandayuthapaniswamy Hill Temple Sthanika Miras 64
Pandarangal Sangam, Palani)

3. Arulmigu Dhandayuthapaniswamy Devasthanam,
Palani,
Through its Executive Officer,
Adivaram, Palani.

4. The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department,
Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai-34.

Page 1 of 22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S(MD)No.2 of 2012

5. A.K.K.Dhandapani
S/o. Kandasamy Pandaram,
President of Arulmigu Dhandayuthapaniswamy
Hill Temple Sthanika Miras 64 Pandarangal Sangam,
Palani, South Car Street,
Palani Town. ... Respondents

Appeal Suit filed under Section 70(2) of the Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments Act, against the judgment and decree dated
11.08.2010 made in O.S.No.113 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate
Judge, Palani.

For Appellants : Mr.S.Anand Chandrasekar for
Mr.R.Nandakumar
For R2 : Mr.G.Gomathi Sankar
For R3 : Mr.K.Sekar
For R4 : Mr.M.Lingadurai
Special Government Pleader

JUDGMENT

The appellant as a plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.113 of 2010

on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Palani, against the

respondents/defendants, for setting aside the order of the 4th respondent

passed in A.P.No.10/90 dated 19.11.1990 and for a declaration that the

appellant alone are entitled to Sramadhakshinai and also Thirumanjanam

fee fixed by the 3rd respondent with costs of the suit. After trial, the trial

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S(MD)No.2 of 2012

Court, by judgment and decree dated 11.08.2010, dismissed the suit.

Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff, as appellant,

has filed this appeal.

2. Brief averments stated in the plaint are as follows:-

The suit relates to apportionment of the amount collected by the

Devasthanam/4th defendant towards Sramadhakshinai and

Thirumanjanam for Abishekam to Lord Dhandayuthapani, Palani,

between the Gurukkal represented by the plaintiff and the Pandarams

represented by the defendants 1 to 3. On 17.04.1970, the 4th defendant

Devasthanam passed orders regarding apportionment of a sum of

Rs.9.40/- collected for Abhishekam by the Temple, of which, a sum of

Rs.6.40/- was retained with the Devasthanam, Re.1 was to be paid to

the Murai Gurukkal as Swarnapushpam, 0.25 paise to Adhyayana Bhattar

for Japa Dakshanai, 0.75 paise to the Gurukkals or Miras Pandarams who

bring Thirumanjanam water and Re.1/- to the persons performing

Abhishekam as Sramadhakshinai. By a subsequent order dated

04.06.1970, the 4th defendant clarified that Sramadhakshinai fee should

be paid to the Gurukkals who perform the Abishekam, as remuneration

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S(MD)No.2 of 2012

for their services. Against the said order, a suit in O.S.No.397 of 1970

on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palani, was filed by defendants 1

to 3 herein, for a declaration that they are entitled to Sramadhakshinai

fee of Re.1/- along with Thirumanjanam fee of 0.75 paise for every

Abhishekam and for other reliefs. The suit was, however, dismissed,

against which, an appeal filed by the defendants 1 to 3 in A.S.424 of

1975, before the District Munsif Court, Madurai, was also dismissed. A

further appeal in S.A.92932/76 was preferred by the Pandarams and the

High Court held that the suit was not maintainable in the Civil Court and

gave liberty to defendants 1 to 3, to pursue the remedy before the

appropriate forum. Thus, the defendants 1 to 3 filed O.A.No.116/79

before the Deputy Commissioner, H.R & C.E. (Administration)

Department, Madurai, under section 63(c) of the Act and conceded that

the orders dated 17.04.1970 and 04.06.1970 of the Devasthanam were

nullity in the absence of the approval by the Commissioner or the Deputy

Commissioner, HR & CE, and prayed for setting aside those orders and

for a direction to pay the money in deposit to them for distribution

amongst them and for a direction to leave the performance of Abishekam

with them or in the alternative, directing the apportionment of the fee

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S(MD)No.2 of 2012

fixed for performance of Abhishekam according to usage of Re.1/- for

Abhisheka Gurukkal as Swarna Pushpam 0.25 paise for Adyayana

Bhattar for seeing Punyavachanam Japam during Abhisekam, 0.75 paise

for Thirumanjanam water exclusively for the Pandarams and Re.1/-

towards Sramadhakshinai exclusively for the Pandarams. The plaintiff

opposed the application, contending inter alia that the Deputy

Commissioner is not vested with the jurisdiction to approve or sit in

judgment over the orders of the Executive Officer dated 17.04.1970 and

06.04.1970, and therefore, the petition filed by defendants 1 to 3 is not

maintainable and it is opposed to several judicial pronouncements and

decisions pertaining to the exclusive right of "thattam Eduthu

Puzhanguthal" in the hands of 64 Pandarams and that the service

claimed to be done by the Pandarams is not a service to the deity, but is

only a personal service done to the worshippers and the claim of the

Pandarams has no factual or legal basis, as it is opposed to the findings

in the prior proceedings. The Deputy Commissioner, by his order dated

11.12.86, has allowed the petition in part. According to the plaintiff, the

order of the Deputy Commissioner did not disclose any valid reasons for

making the said apportionment and it is not based on the evidence on

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S(MD)No.2 of 2012

record. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff preferred appeal in A.P.

10/90 before the 5th defendant, who by order dated 29.11.1990, had

confirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner and dismissed the

appeal on 29.11.1990. Hence, the suit.

3. Brief averments in the written statement are as follow:-

The defendants 1 to 3 filed a written statement, stating that though

the suit was filed under Order 7 Rule 1 CPC, the court fee was paid under

Section 104 of the HR & CE Act, as such, the court fee is inadequate.

The averment that the Devasthanam passed orders for apportionment of

fees collected for abishegams and Thirumanjanam, is denied. The Trust

Board simply passed a resolution to collect Rs.9.40 for each abishegams.

According to the defendants 1 to 3, there was no such resolution. Only

after the liberty granted by the High Court in S.A.No.942 of 1976, the

defendants 1 to 3 filed O.A.No.116 of 1979 before the Deputy

Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Madurai, under Section 63(e) of the H.R. &

C.E. Act. After elaborate enquiry and perusal of various documents of all

the parties, the Deputy Commissioner passed orders as to shares in the

Sramadhakshinai and Thirumanjanam in the amount of Rs.9.40 collected

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S(MD)No.2 of 2012

by the Devasthanam for each abishegam. The right of the pandarams

for emoluments attached to Thirumanjanam service is already

established. The office of Sangam is already recognized and their right to

Thattam Eduthu Puzhanguthal has been determined, established and

recognized. Thus, questioning the right of the pandarams does not arise

at this stage. The Commissioner, H.R & C.E., Madras, confirmed the

order of the Deputy Commissioner as to the rights of these defendants

for Sramadakshnai and Thirumanjanam. A slight modification in

Thirumanjanam service has been made by him, but the order is clear

that the plaintiff has no right to claim Thirumanjanam service. The

attempt to distinguish Dakshanai and Kattanam is perverted. The

allegation that the Pandarams were never paid Sramadakshanai nor

claimed it till 1970, is ex-facie illegal and against the facts. On the

allegation that Gurukkal had the right to Sramadakshanai as per the

customs and judicial decisions is incorrect. Further, it cannot be said

that payment of Sramadakshanai is a gift only to Gurukkal to perform

abishegams. As a matter of fact, they are paid Sornapushpam for their

service. They cannot claim a share in the Sramadakshanai collected by

the Devasthanam, which must go to the pandarams only. The Deputy

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S(MD)No.2 of 2012

Commissioner took a lenient view that Gurukkals also could have a share

with Pandarams. The Gurukkals are meant for service in the sanctum

sanctorum. They cannot opt for or indulge themselves for

Thirumanjanam service and if they do so, Hindu sentiments will

disqualify them from being Gurukkals to render service in the sanctum

sanctorum. The exclusive right of pandarams for Thirumanjanam service

has already been determined and established. The Gurukkals have no

right to challenge the order of the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E, which was

passed after proper enquiry and after giving reasonable opportunity.

Thus, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

3.1. The 4th defendant/Devasthanam also filed a written statement,

reiterating the above averments. In addition thereto, they contended

that the plaintiffs have deliberately overlooked the fact that the

Pandarams also participate in the preparation for Abhishekam and would

be entitled to apportionment of Sramadhakshinai. As the name indicates

that any person who is entitled to undergo the labour (Sirama) of the

combined act of preparing and performing the Abeshekam, would be

entitled to the amount, the Gurukkal cannot claim to be entitled to the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S(MD)No.2 of 2012

entire amount. The suit itself is misconceived and is not maintainable

without statutory notice to the defendants 4 & 5 and the the plaintiff

have to avail the remedy only under the provisions of the H.R & C.E. Act.

Thus, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

3.2. The 5th defendant/Commissioner, HR & CE., also filed a written

statement stating that the temple authorities introduced the ticket

system in the year 1970 for abishekam and other items after the judicial

proceedings in the years 1937 and 1946. Before that, the Pandarams

were getting remuneration from the worshippers. After introducing the

ticket system, the Pandarams were getting their remuneration through

the temple by means of shares in Archanai and Abishegam tickets. The

Thirumanjanam right for the Pandarams has been established in O.S.No.

303/1960. The service of Pandarams in the temple is in existence for

over centuries. Hence, the Pandarams are entitled to their share in the

Ticket System. The Deputy Commissioner as well as the 5th defendant

had passed orders after perusing the records produced before them.

Further, the system of Swaranapushpam was introduced by the temple

authorities from the year 1970. It was a new payment to the Gurukkal

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S(MD)No.2 of 2012

doing Archaka after Abishegam, Alangaram etc. It is to be adorned on

the deity as per agama and other conventions during Archanai performed

by the Gurukkal at the Karpagraham. Hence, the temple authority had

introduced the Swarnapushpam share to the Gurukkal. Both Pandarams

and Gurukkals do labour in preparing abisheka items out of abisheka

articles while the Gurukkals actually perform abishegam on the deity.

Hence, they are entitled to Sramathatchanai in equal share. The supply

of Thirumanjanam water and taking the worshippers to the temple with

abishegam articles duly prepared and entering the temple into

Arthamandapam otherwise called "Thattu Eduthu Pulanguthal" are the

exclusive rights of Pandrams. The right of Thattu Eduthu Pulanguthal

was recognized by the High Court in S.A.No.672/1946. To prevent

undue extraction from the worshippers, the temple authorities had

introduced the ticket system for abishegam and other items in the year

1970. After introducing the ticket system, the remuneration received

from the worshippers became the emoluments of the temple, but it is

only a gratuitous payments for the personal service rendered to the

worshippers by the Pandarams. There is an agreement between the

Pandarams and Gurukkals for taking of charges and income for their

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S(MD)No.2 of 2012

services rendered in the temple. In the year 1960, the temple authority

had decided to give equal share to Pandarams and Gurukkals. Thus, the

suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the

following issues:-

(i) Whether the members of the plaintiff sangam are alone entitled

to fee fixed by the 4th defendant towards Sramadakshanai and

Thirumanjanam?

(ii) Whether the order passed by the 5th defendant is liable to be set

aside?

(iii) Whether proper court fee is paid by the plaintiff?

(iv) To what other relief, the plaintiff is entitled to?

5. In order to substantiate the case, on the side of the plaintiff,

one witness was examined as PW1 and 10 documents were marked as

Exs.A1 to A10. On the side of the defendants, three witnesses were

examined and 35 documents were marked as Exs.B1 to B35.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S(MD)No.2 of 2012

6. The trial Court, considering the pleadings, oral and

documentary evidence, by judgment and decree dated 11.08.2010,

dismissed the suit. Challenging the said judgment and decree, the

plaintiff has filed this appeal.

7. Though the appellant filed a suit in O.S.No.113 of 2010, for

setting aside the order of the 4th respondent passed in A.P.No.10/90

dated 19.11.1990 and for a declaration that the appellant alone are

entitled to Sramadhakshinai and also Thirumanjanam fee fixed by the 3 rd

respondent, the learned counsel for the appellant restricted his

arguments only to apportionment of amount at 0.75 paise towards

Thirumanjanam fee. As per the order dated 17.04.1970 passed by the

3rd respondent/Devasthanam, a sum of Rs.9.40/- is collected for

Abhishekam by the Devasthanam, of which, Rs.6.40/- will be retained

with the Devasthanam, Re.1 has to be paid to the Murai Gurukkal as

Swarnapushpam, 0.25 paise has to be paid to Adhyayana Bhattar for

Japa Dakshanai, 0.75 paise to the Gurukkals or Miras Pandarams who

bring Thirumanjanam water and Re.1/- to the persons performing

Abhishekam as Sramadhakshinai. There is no dispute regarding the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S(MD)No.2 of 2012

other apportionments except the Thirumanjanam fee. According to the

learned counsel, the entire fee fixed for Thirumanjanam is ordered to be

paid to the Pandarams alone, but Gurukkals also bringing the

Thirumanjanam water for Abhishekam. When the respondents 3 and 4

ordered Sramadhakshinai to the 64 Pandarams and 32 Gurukkals in

equal share, the Thirumanjanam fee also should be paid to both the

Pandarams and Gurukkals either in equal share or in proportionate

share. However, without assigning any reason, the 4th respondent

confirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner, HR & CE, and the trial

Court also failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence and

erroneously dismissed the suit. Thus, he would pray for setting aside the

judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

8. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 2 and 5 would

submit that both the Pandarams and Gurukkals were initially the

servants of the temple and there was no remuneration and they collected

money from the devotees directly and subsequently in 1970, ticket

system was introduced and Devasthanam is collecting Rs.9.40/- for

every Abhishekam, of which, Rs.6.40/- will be retained with the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S(MD)No.2 of 2012

Devasthanam, Re.1 has to be paid to the Murai Gurukkal as

Swarnapushpam, 0.25 paise has to be paid to Adhyayana Bhattar for

Japa Dakshanai, 0.75 paise to the Gurukkals or Miras Pandarams who

bring Thirumanjanam water and Re.1/- to the persons performing

Abhishekam as Sramadhakshinai. Since both the Pandarams and

Gurukkals work for the Abhishekam and Pandarams used to bring all the

pooja articles from the respective places to the temple till the

Arthamandapam and thereafter, Gurukkal alone will be permitted to

enter into the santum for performing Abhishekam and poojas for the

deity, the amount of Re.1 under the head Sramadhakshinai is divided by

both the Pandarams and Gurukkals equally and as far as the

Thirumanjanam fee is concerned, since the Pandarams alone are bringing

the Thirumanjanam water, they have got exclusive right and therefore,

the Thirumanjanam fee of 0.75 paise should go to the Pandarams.

Though earlier, the suit filed by a Pandaram went upto the High Court,

the High Court held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the

issue and only the 4th respondent has got the jurisdiction and therefore,

the Pandarams approached the Deputy Commissioner, HR & CE, by filing

O.A.No.116/79 which was partly allowed, against which, the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S(MD)No.2 of 2012

appellant/Gurukkals filed appeal which was dismissed by the

Commissioner, HR & CE and therefore, the appellant filed the present

suit and the trial Court also considering the oral and documentary

evidence, rightly dismissed the suit. Further, the right of Pandarams to

Thirumanjanam has been recognised from time immemorial and since

the appellant/Gurukkals are not bringing Thirumanjanam,

Thirumanjanam fee has to go to Pandarams alone. Thus, there is no

merit in this appeal and the same is liable to be set aside.

9. Heard both sides and perused the records.

10. Admittedly for the Dhandayuthapaniswamy Devasthanam,

services of two persons are utilised who are Pandarams and Gurukkals.

Even Exs.B26 and B27 clearly narrate the custom prevailed from the

beginning in the said temple. It is not in dispute that both Pandarams

and Gurukkals are rendering their services to the temple. Even as

admitted by both the parties, Pandarams are extending their services to

bring all the pooja articles from the respective places till Arthamandapam

and helping the Gurukkals to perform Abishekams and poojas. Only the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S(MD)No.2 of 2012

Gurukkals are permitted to enter into the sanctum to perform

Abishekams and poojas to Lord Dhandayuthapaniswamy and rest of the

services are rendered by the Pandarams. Apart from that, Pandarams

are also taking the water for the Thirumanjanam till the Arthamandapam

and then hand it over to the Gurukkals for Abishekam. Though

Pandarams were not initially paid any amount, subsequently in 1970,

ticket system was introduced and Devasthanam is collecting Rs.9.40/-

for every Abhishekam, of which, Rs.6.40/- will be retained with the

Devasthanam, Re.1 has to be paid to the Murai Gurukkal as

Swarnapushpam, 0.25 paise has to be paid to Adhyayana Bhattar for

Japa Dakshanai, 0.75 paise to the Gurukkals or Miras Pandarams who

bring Thirumanjanam water and Re.1/- to the persons performing

Abhishekam as Sramadhakshinai.

11. As per Ex.B14, the Pandarams who bring the Tirumanjanam

are divided into 3 classification in the accounts:-

(a) Ayan Thirumanjana Pandarams.

(b) Kattalai Thirumanjana Pandarams.

(c) Ubhayam (turn) Thirumanjana Pandarams.

(a) The Ayan Thirumanjana Pandarams are bound to bring

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S(MD)No.2 of 2012

thirumanjanam for the 6 kala (period) pujas and abhishekams that the

devasthanams perform to Sri Andawar in the Hill-temple.

(b) The kattalai Thirumanjana Pandarams are those worshippers to

whom kattalai is given for any period out of the aforesaid 6 puja periods

mentioned above by the devotees and who are bound to bring the

thirumanjana kudam (pot) and those which they are asked to bring, for

that purpose.

bound to bring thirumanjanam as a service due to the temple considering

the remuneration that they earn by performing archanas and

abhishekams for the baktha janas (devotees).

Of these, the persons belonging to item (a) should receive the rice

that is prescribed for them under the accounts, on the days when they

bring the thirumanjanam.

The persons belonging to (a), (b) item for the remuneration that

they earn by performing archana and abhishekam for the baktha janas

(devotees), besides the ayan kattalai thirumanjana kudams (vessels),

intended for them, they and each of the ubhaya thirumanjanam

(Pandarams) shall bring as prescribed in the accounts.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S(MD)No.2 of 2012

12. Thus, the Pandarams are taking Thirumanjanam water for

Abhishekam and hand it over to the Gurukkals in the Arthamandapam

and therefore they are entitled for the fee allotted for Thirumanjanam.

The learned counsel for the appellant restricted his arguments stating

that Thirumanjanam fee should also be divided by both the Gurukkals

and Pandarams proportionately or equally, which has not been done by

the 4th respondent. The main contention of the appellant is that

Gurukkals are also bringing the Thirumanjanam water, but however, the

evidence is silent about the distribution of Thirumanjanam fees to the

Gurukkals. Reading of the entire materials produced by the

Devasthanam, particularly, the earlier proceedings marked as Exs.B14,

B26 and B27 gives a picture regarding the history of the temple and that

there is a vital role of Pandarams in the temple and in olden days,

Pandarams only were taking all the pooja articles from the land to top of

the rock temple manually and also the water for six times abhishekams.

Reading of Exs.B14, B26 and B27 shows that Pandarams are not given

remuneration and they are only provided with cooked rice and

subsequently Pandarams were helping the devotees to come to the

temple and were also carrying pooja articles from the land to the top

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S(MD)No.2 of 2012

rock temple. Subsequently, things have been changed and the

Devasthanam introduced ticket system and collected Rs.9.40/- for every

abhishekam from the devotees as stated above.

13. Now the question to be decided is whether Pandarams alone

are entitled for Thirumanjana fee that is 0.75 paise or both Pandarams

and Gurukkals are entitled to divide the same proportionately. Reading

of Ex.A1-order passed by the 4th respondent in A.P.No.10/90 dated

19.11.1990, shows that the 4th respondent has clearly narrated the

system prevailed in the temple. Pandarams alone are contributing their

services regarding the bringing of Thirumanjanam water for abhishekam

and even from Exs.B14, B26 and B27, it could be seen that the right to

bring Thirumanjanam water is exclusively given only to Pandarams.

Nowhere, it is stated that Gurukkals are also contributing their services

regarding the bringing of Thirumanjanam water.

14. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the

case, though the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that in

the evidence, the defendants 1 to 3 admitted that some of the Gurukkals

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S(MD)No.2 of 2012

are also taking the water, the appellant cannot claim it as a matter of

right. The right to bring Thirumanjanam water has not been given to

Gurukkals from the beginning. With the available documents like,

Exs.B14, B26 and B27, this Court is able to see that Pandarams alone

are entrusted with the bringing of Thirumanjana water from the

earmarked places till the Arthamandapam, that is, the inner room of the

temple next to sanctum and thereafter, Gurukkals are using the said

Thirumanjanam water for abhishekam of the Lord

Dhandayuthapaniswamy which is installed in the sanctum. Therefore,

the role of Pandarams is vital from the time immemorial in the

Dhandayuthapaniswamy Devasthanam. The 4th respondent,

Commissioner, HR & CE, considering the custom prevailed in that temple

and also the role played by the Pandarams, rightly passed an order under

Ex.A1.

15. This Court as a first appellate Court which is a final Court of

fact finding, has to re-appreciate and give independent finding. This

Court independently weighing the entire materials and considering the

oral and documentary evidence of both the parties and also the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S(MD)No.2 of 2012

judgment of the trial Court, does not find any perversity or good reason

to interfere with the said judgment.

16. In view of the above, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

            bala                                                 16.08.2022
            Index                 : Yes / No
            Internet              : Yes



            To

            The Subordinate Judge,
            Srivilliputhur.








https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                         A.S(MD)No.2 of 2012



                                  P.VELMURUGAN, J.

                                                     bala




                                   JUDGMENT MADE IN
                                  A.S(MD)No.2 of 2012
                                   DATED : 16.08.2022








https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis