Meenakshisundaram and Others vs Arulmigu Sri Mariamman and Others

This litigation has arisen because what was once worthless has now become very valuable. The appeal impugns the judgment and order of the High Court at Madras, which allowed the appeal filed before it and reversed the judgment and order of the trial court. The Mariamman Temple is situated at Irukkankudi in Ramanathapuram. Devotees of the Goddess have their hair shaved off and take a purificatory bath before entering the temple. For the purposes of the tonsure, they purchase a ticket from the temple authorities. At the relevant time, the price of the ticket was one rupee; twelve annas there out was retained by the temple authorities and four annas paid to the barbers. The barbers are hereditary service holders in the temple. For generations, it would seem, the shaven hair was considered refuse and treated as such. It became valuable in the course of the last fifty years or so, and there was a dispute between the four families or hereditary barbers in the temple on the one hand, and the temple authorities on the other, as to its ownership. In 1948 the office of the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Board, Madras, issued to the temple authorities instructions to permit the barbers to take the shaven hair. The directive was followed until 1969 when the temple authorities moved the Deputy Commissioner under the Tamil Nadu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. Before that authority, as also in appeal, the temple authorities lost. There upon, the temple authorities exercised their statutory right to bring a suit and the appeal arises out of this suit. In the suit the temple authorities prayed that the orders of the quasi-judicial authorities just referred, to be set aside. They averred that these authorities had failed to recognise that the shaven hair belonged to the deity. It was for the hereditary barbers to prove the usage and custom by which they claimed to appropriate the shaven hair to themselves. The trial court framed an issue in relation to the correctness of the orders of the said authorities. It also framed an issue which required the hereditary barbers to establish that the were entitled to the shaven hair by custom and usage. Upon consideration of the evidence placed before the trial court, it came to the conclusion that the suit should fail. In appeal, the High Court held that it was satisfied that the temple was the owner of the hair which devotees left behind after tonsure; the barbers had no title to the same. It then considered whether the barbers had established a custom or usage to appropriate to themselves the shaven hair and found that no such custom or usage had been proved.

We do not propose to go into the details of the evidence. It is clear there from that the hereditary barbers are service holders of the temple. They tonsure such pilgrims as have bought from the temple authorities a ticket. The larger slice of the revenue from such tickets goes to the temple and the smaller slice is paid by the temple to the hereditary barbers. The hair of the pilgrims used to be tonsured under tamarind trees situated around the temple and, when the suit was tried, this was being done in a shed erected for the purpose in the temple premises.

We are led to the conclusion that the shaven hair would belong to the devotee if he asked for it; but if he chose to leave it behind, it would belong to the temple. It would certainly not belong to the barbers, having regard to the fact that they are service holders of the temple, who operate in the temple premises on the basis of a ticket issued by the temple and draw renumeration for their services from the temple.

It was submitted that the question of title had not been raised and ought not to have been decided by the High Court. We do not find this submission acceptable. The pleading on behalf of the temple authorities was that the hair offered to the deity by the devotees belonged to the deity and the title therein vested in the deity. It was upon this basic that the temple authorities sought to set aside the orders issued by the authorities under the Act.

In regard to the issue relating to the custom and usage under which the barbers claimed the shaven hair, three witnesses were examined on their behalf. The evidence has been dealt with by the High Court. We are satisfied that the evidence does not establish a custom or usage that would supervene over the title that we have found in the temple. It is true, as argued, that there is no specific period over which a custom or usage is required to be proved, but it must certainly be of a substantial period of time and such as would prevail over title. We find that the evidence, taken at its best, carries the alleged custom or usage back to around 1937 and, from the year 1948, the order of the Board, as aforesaid, operated. We do not think that evidence of this nature is strong enough to establish that the hereditary barbers had, by dint of usage or custom, the right to the shaven hair.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

On 14th August, 1981, this Court had, when giving special leave to appeal, made an interim order in relation to the collection and investment of money realised from the sale of the shaven hair. Having regard to the dismissal of the appeal, it shall be open to the temple authorities (Respondents) to withdraw such accumulated money. There shall be no order as to costs.