K. Muruga Boopathi (died), Kuruvanantham, Sakthivel and Veyil Muthumariammal vs G. Ramar and Others

M.M. Sundresh, J.—The unsuccessful Plaintiff (since died) is the Appellant herein. Since the Appellant died, the legal heirs have been brought on record. A suit has been filed by the deceased Plaintiff seeking for declaration and permanent injunction restraining the Respondents from interfering with his rights to conduct Poojas in the temple on the ground that the temple belongs to them. In fact, the said suit has been filed on behalf of the temple by the deceased first Appellant. The suit has been dismissed by the trial Court by holding that without adding the necessary parties, namely the other legal heirs of one Veeranna Thalaivar, the same is not maintainable in law. The appeal filed by the Appellant was dismissed by holding that in as much as proceedings have been initiated by the authorities under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act by appointing a fit person and the writ petition filed by the first Appellant challenging the said order becomes final, the suit is liable to be dismissed. A further finding has been given that without a prayer for the declaration, the suit is not sustainable. Challenging the judgments and decrees of the Court below, the first Appellant/plaintiff has come forward with the present Second appeal.

At the time of admitting the Second appeal, the following Substantial Questions of law have been framed:

Whether the judgment of the lower appellate Court is vitiated for the failure to comply with the mandatory of order 41 Rule 31 Code of Civil Procedure?

Whether the relief of bare injunction can be denied on the ground that no relief for declaration was sought for?

Whether the Lower Appellate Court can set aside the finding of a trial Court in the absence of specific cross appeal by the Respondents?

The Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the trial Court has given a finding in favour of the deceased Appellant and it has dismissed the suit only on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. However, the lower appellate Court has dismissed the appeal on a different ground, namely not seeking a prayer for declaration and also on the ground that the proceedings initiated by the Appellant has become final. Therefore, the Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that in the absence of any issue framed regarding declaration and in view of the factual finding by the trial Court, the judgment of the lower appellate Court is liable to be set aside, moreso none of the legal heirs have come forward to assert their rights.

Per contra, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents submitted that the writ petition challenging the order appointing a fit person by the authority constituted under the Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowments Act, 1959 has become final, as the Writ Petition filed by the first Appellant has been dismissed. Since the suit has been filed on behalf of the temple and the temple itself being a public temple, the lower appellate Court has rightly held that the suit is not maintainable. Therefore, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the appeal will have to be dismissed.

Admittedly, proceedings have been initiated under the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act by declaring the temple as a public temple by appointing a fit person. The writ petition filed by the deceased Appellant challenging the said proceedings has been dismissed. In law, there is a presumption that all the temples are public temples and therefore, it is for the person claiming it as public temple or private temple to establish the same under the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. Therefore, the suit for permanent injunction without seeking to declare the public temple as private temple is not maintainable in law and on facts. It is not disputed by the Appellants that proceedings have been initiated under the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. If that is the position, the very suit filed by the 1st Appellant/plaintiff representing the temple, based upon the averments it is a private temple is not maintainable. When the temple has the character of public temple, then the very eligibility of the Appellant to represent the temple is in dispute. Further, the first Appellant has not added the Government authorities as parties. Moreover, the proceedings initiated by the officials have become final. Hence, this Court does not find any substantial question of law warranting interference to the judgment and decree rendered by the Courts below by exercising the power u/s 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to the costs. However, it is open to the Appellants to approach the appropriate forum to establish the fact that the temple is a private temple. As and when such an application is filed, the same will have to be considered on its own merit without influenced by the decision rendered either by this Court or the Courts below. The registry is directed to send back the records to the Courts below within a period of four weeks from the date of this order.