AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Palanivelu, J.—This appeal has been filed u/s 70 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil
Nadu Act 22 of 1959) against the Judgment and Decree dated 10.08.1990 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram, at Madurai in
O.S. No. 24 of 1989.
2.(i). The averments contained in the plaint, precisely, are as follows:
The suit property belongs to a Trust by name Srimath Pamban Kumaragurudass Swamigal temple, Pirappan Valasai, in Ramnad District. One
N.Balasubramaniam is the author of the Trust Deed dated 17.03.1970, registered on 18.07.1970, at Madras. The said N.Balasubramaniam is the
father of the plaintiffs 2 to 4. One Sivagnanathammal is the mother of the said N.Balasubramaniam who is the daughter of Srimath Pamban
Kumaragurudass Swamigal. The first plaintiff is sister''s husband of 2 to 4 plaintiffs''.
2.(ii). The Trust Deed contained stipulations for construction of temple in an area of one acre belonging to the said N. Balasubramaniam which is a
portion out of the total extent of about 4 acres and also for maintenance of flower and coconut garden for the use of the said temple. The Founder,
namely, N.Balasubramaniam transferred and assigned the property in favour of Mahathejomandalam at Thirvanmiyur, Madras represented by the
then Secretary, Kuppuswamy Chetty. According to the Deed of Trust, the Trust shall be called as ""Srimath Pamban Kumaragurudass Temple
Trust"" and it shall be managed by the Board of three Trustees constituted in the following manner:
(a) The Founder or any one of his descendants shall be the Hereditary Trustee for life successively.
(b) The Secretary for the time being of the Mahathajomandalam which was founded by Srimath Pamban Kumaragurudass Swamigal himself shall
be one of the Trustees.
(c) Sri T. Alagappan residing at Mandapam shall be a Trustee of the institution for life and after his life time his son shall be Trustee in the place.
After the life time of his son, the other two Trustee shall co-opt any one of their choice in his place
2.(iii). The father of the plaintiffs 2 to 4, the first plaintiff and the Secretary of Mahathajomandalam were Trustees of the said Trust at the inception.
They had powers to raise subscriptions and donations from the Trust for the purpose for construction of temple and mandapam for Swamiji in the
land and for installing idols for Swamigal, Lord Muruga, Lord Vinayager and other deities thereon after due consecration and making all
arrangements for performance of Nithya Pooja as well as periodical festivals and for proper maintenance. A Thirupani Committee was also formed
by the Trustees. Thereafter, the Board of Trustees took possession of the land covered by the Trust Deed and one Ganesan was appointed as the
Secretary of the Committee.
2.(iv). In 1975, a temple for Swamigal was constructed and completed with Mandapam in front of the temple and the said temple was also
consecrated. The nature and character of the Trust is evidently a private one as the temple is named after Srimath Pamban Swamigal and not for
any deity for the worship of public as of right.
2.(v). N. Balasubramaniam and the Secretary of Mahathejomandalam and the first plaintiff filed a petition before the Deputy Commissioner of
H.R.&C.E. Board, Madurai u/s 63(a) of the H.R.&C.E. Act (""the Act"" for short) for a declaration that H.R. & C.E. Department had no
jurisdiction to stipulate conditions of Management and to interfere in the Trust activity. The said O.A. No. 4 of 1981 was dismissed by the second
defendant and the appeal before the first defendant also faced dismissal. Hence, the suit has been laid for setting aside the order passed by the
defendants for declaration and for costs.
3(i). The allegations found in the written statement of the first defendant, adopted by the second defendant, are tersely, as follows:
The suit Trust is a Public Trust. The name of the institution was originally known as ""Arulmigu Mayuraperumal Sri Kumaraguru Swamigal
Devasthanam and now an attempt is made to change the name as ""Pirappan Valasai Kumaragurudasa Trust"" with ulterior motive. The Trust Deed,
dated 17.03.1970 is not eligible for exemption. The suit is bad for non-joinder of the Founder of the Trust. The Secretary of the
Mahathejomandalam is not a party to the suit. The temple was constructed from and out of the funds collected from the public in the year 1978. It
is under the control of H.R. & C.E.Department and a contribution was also levied on the suit temple. The Trustees have power to collect
donations and subscriptions from the public for the constructions of the temple and Mandapam. The idols of Lord Murugan (Mayuranathan),
''Lord Vinayagar'' and other deities worshipped by the Hindu Public are installed in the suit temple along with the idol of Srimath Pamban
Swamigal.
3(ii). It is a place of public worship by the Hindu Community. The members of the public are entitled to offer worship as of right in the temple
without any hindrance. There is a paid Archakar in the temple and daily three times pooja and periodical festivals are regularly performed. The
Archakar is performing Archanai for the deities. After Archanai is performed, Vibuthi and Prasadams are distributed to the devotees. Public pay
offerings to the Archakar, apart from their contribution to the temple. At the time of Panguni Uthiram, a Kodimaram (Flag mast) is installed. There
is a large concourse of pilgrims on every Karthigai day. Poor feeding is also done on that day.
3(iii). The plaintiffs'' averments would show that Srimath Pamban Swamigal is regarded as an incarnation of God. Worship of a saintly person is
also regarded as worshipping God. In fact, the main deity of the temple is Shri Mayuranathan (Lord Murugan). Mere presence of an idol of
Srimath Pamban Swamigal does not alter the character of the public temple as defined u/s 6(20) of the Act. There is public involvement in the
construction, improvement and maintenance of the temple. It is not a private temple. The public have been worshiping the idols therein for a long
time. The expenses incurred for conducting festivals are also met from the collection of funds from the public. It is a public religious institution as
defined u/s 6(18) of the Act. The suit temple has got the characteristics of the Hindu public religious institution. The impugned order has been
rightly passed by the second defendant and approved by the first defendant. They are valid in law. The suit claim is barred by limitation. The suit is
bad for want of notice u/s 80 C.P.C. Hence, the suit may be dismissed with costs.
In the back drop of the above said rival contentions of the parties, in the light of oral evidence adduced and the documents produced by both of
them and the judgment of the learned Sub-Judge, Ramnad, at Madurai, the following points have arisen for consideration of this Court:
(i) Whether the suit temple is a public one as contended by the appellants?
(ii) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
(iii) Whether the suit claim is barred by time?
(iv) whether the suit is maintainable in view of non-issuance of notice u/s 80 C.P.C.?
(v) Whether the impugned orders of the appellants deserve to be set aside?
Point No:1 In order to have a thorough discussion, proper consideration and appreciation of evidence on record, it is profitable to have the
glimpse of Sections 6(17) and 6(20) of Tamil Nadu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which go
thus:
6.(17) ""religious endowment"" or ""endowment"" means ail property belonging to or given or endowed for the support of maths or temples, or given
or endowed for the performance of any service or charity of a public nature connected therewith or of any other religious charity; and includes the
institution concerned and also the premises thereof, but does not include gifts of property made as personal gifts to the archaka, service holder or
other employee of a religious institution;
Explanation-(1) Any inam granted to an archaka, service holder or other employee of a religious institution for the performance of any service or
charity in or connected with a religious institution shall not be deemed to be a personal gift to the archaka, service holder or employee but shall be
deemed to be a religious endowment.
Explanation-(2) All property which belonged to, or was given or endowed for the support of a religious institution, or which was given or endowed
for the performance of any service or charity of a public nature connected therewith or of any other religious charity shall be deemed to be a
religious endowment"" or ""endowment"" within the meaning of this definition, notwithstanding that, before or after the date of the commencement of
this Act, the religious institution has ceased to exist or ceased to be used as a place of religious worship or instruction or the service or charity has
ceased to be performed:
Provided that this Explanation shall not be deemed to apply in respect of any property which vested in any person before the 30th September
1951, by the operation of the law of limitation....
6.(20) ""temple"" means a place by whatever designation known, used as a place of public religious worship and dedicated to, or for the benefit of,
or used as of right by, the Hindu community or of any section thereof, as a place of public religious worship ;
Explanation-Where a temple situated outside the State has properties situated within the State, control shall be exercised over the temple in
accordance with the provisions of this Act, in so far as the properties of the temple situated within the State are concerned;
Srimath Pamban Kumaragurudass Swamigal was born between 1850 and 1852 in Rameshwaram. He was a staunch devotee of Lord Muruga.
He used to write poems on Lord Muruga and he is being celebrated by Hindus as a Saint. It is stated that during his life time, Lord Muruga, on
many an occasion, performed miracles. At one point of time, he came to Pirappan Valasai, dug a pit, sat there and had been performing penance
for 35 days and he got the grace of having Divine Dharshan of Lord Muruga. The said place is the subject matter in the Deed of Trust executed by
N. Balasubramaniam under Ex.A.4 dated 17.03.1970. An extent of about one acre land comprised in Survey No. 163/2 part, situated in Pirappan
Valasai in Ramanad Taluk, Ramnad District is a portion in about four acres belonging to N. Balasubramaniam and it was dedicated to the Trust for
construction of temple and Mandapam for Shri Kumaragurudasa Swamigal (""the Swamigal"" for short) and for the maintenance of flower and
coconut garden for the use of the temple.
The Trust Deed was duly registered in Sub-Registrar''s Office, Ramanathapuram. During the period of his earthly existence, as the Swamigal
performed penance in the site covered by the Deed and also had divine envisioned Lord Muruga, the Founder of Trust deemed it a holy and
consecrated place and hence, he was desirous of dedicating the plot of land to the Trust for the above said object.
The Trust Deed inter alia contains the following clauses for the Management of the Trust:
The said Trust shall be called ''SRI PAMBAN KUMARAGURUDASA TEMPLE Trust''.
The Trust shall be managed by a Board of three Trustees constituted in the following manner:
(a) The Founder and one of his descendants shall be a hereditary trustee for life successively.
(b) The Secretary for the time being of the Mahathejomandalam which was founded by Srimath Pamban Kumaragurudass Swamigal shall be a
Trustee.
Sri. T. Alagappan, residing at Mandapam shall be a Trustee for life and after his life time, his son shall be Trustee in his place. After the life time
of his son, the other two Trustees shall co-opt any one of their choice in his place.
The Trust Deed further provides for performance of Nitya Pujas of worship, periodical Pujas and Utsavams in the temple and for its proper
maintenance. The Deed also empowers the Trustees to appoint a Thiruppani Committee for raising subscriptions for construction of temple.
Earlier, N. Balasubramaniam had executed an Inam Settlement Deed dated 17.01.1969 under Ex.A.3, in favour one T.Ganesa Pillai who was the
Headman of Pirappan Valasai appointing him as the Trustee of the Trust on the representation by the said individual that he was the Secretary of
Mahathejomandalam, Tiruvanmiyur at Madras. Subsequently, the author came to know that the said T. Ganesa Pillai duped him and hence, he
revoked the Inam Settlement Deed by means of another document viz.,Ex.A.20.
The learned Additional Government Pleader, Mr. K.M. Vijayakumar, appearing for the appellants would strenuously contend that all the
characteristic features available and perceivable in the suit temple would definitely and candidly establish that it is a public temple and by no stretch
of imagination, it could be stated that the same is a private one and hence, the impugned proceedings issued by the appellants shall hold good.
Ex.A.18 is dated 16.09.1988, which has been passed by the first appellant in appeal petition No. 39 of 1985 confirming the order passed by the
second appellant who has found that the temple is not a private one, but a public temple.
Learned Counsel would draw attention of this Court on various portions of oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, which show that the suit temple is
not a private one. In the cross-examination, even though P.W.1 has stated that there was no Hundiyal in the temple to his knowledge, P.W.2, the
priest who is performing pooja in the temple would categorically state that Hundiyal was available in the temple during 1980 and since there was a
theft of Hundiyal, it was not kept thereafter.
A harmonious reading of the oral accounts of the witnesses would show that there is a deity of Shri Mayuranathan (Lord Murugan) and in front
of the same, the idol of Swamigal also was installed. Both of them were made of granite stones, facing same direction and entrance of the temple.
There are also idols of Lord Vinayaga and Arunagirinathar, a committed devotee of Lord Muruga who was also a poet and Agathiyar, the great
saint. It is stated by the respondents that even though the size of idol of Swamigal is smaller (below 50% of height of idol of Lord Mayuranathan)
than the idol of Lord Mayuranathan, the idol of Swamigal alone has been treated as presiding deity and only after performing puja for the idol of
Swamigal, the pooja for the idol of Mayuranathan would be done.
D.W.1 is the Inspector of H.R.&C.E Department, who has visited the suit temple on several occasions. He has deposed that the temple must
have been constructed from the donations obtained from the public and the devotees used to chant the poems written by Arunagirinathar and
Pamban Swamigal on Lord Muruga and there was no restriction for the members of the public to have access to the temple. During festivals and
Kiruthigai celebrations every month, concourse of devotees numbering about 1500 used to visit the temple; that the structure of the tower
established in the temple has the characteristic feature of a public temple and flag mast is installed at the time of Panguni Uthiram Festival; that it is a
sacred place since Lord Muruga presented divine darshan to Swamigal and hence, the worship by the public is being offered to Lord Muruga
alone and not to Swamigal. He is definite in his version that it is a public temple. P.W.1 and the fourth plaintiff have stated that inside the temple
compound, the Madapalli (cooking room for a temple) was constructed by one doctor Ganga and the front Mandapam was constructed by
Neelakandan brothers.
P.W.3 is a regular visitor to the temple who is a businessman in Madurai. He says that the prime pooja is in favour of Swamigal. He further
adds that the invitations printed for celebrations would show that the temple is known as Pamban Swamigal Temple.
The learned Special Government Pleader, in support of his contention garnered support from a Division Bench Judgment of this Court
reported in 66 Law Weekly, in C. Ratnavelu Mudaliar v. The Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, in which it is held
that the performance of Gurupuja to a tomb will not usually lead to a conclusion that the particular tomb is Private Religious Institution. The
operative portion of the judgment goes thus:
Even if the institution in question had its origin in a tomb, it is undeniable that for nearly a century it has come to be recognised as a temple. The fact
that Gurupooja is being performed and that it is not in consonance with orthodox notions of religious practice is again not a ground for holding that
the institution is not a temple if it falls within the definition of a temple under the Act. In this connection, the following observations of
Varadachariar, J, in Board of Commissioner''s for Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Pidugu Narasimham (3) may be quoted:
That what the evidence in this case describes as taking place in connection with the institution is public worship can admit of no doubt. We think it
is also religious. The test is not whether it conforms to any particular school of Agama Sastras; we think that the question must be decided with
reference to the view of the class of people who took part in the worship. If they believe in its religious efficacy, in the sense that by such worship,
they are making themselves the object of the bounty of some superhuman power, it must be regarded as religious worship.
As already mentioned, the facts established are that the Trustees and the public have, for a long period, regarded this institution as a place of
religious worship which the public is entitled to use as a matter of right. That brings it within the definition of a temple in Section 9(12) of the
Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act.
The learned Sub-judge has thoroughly gone through exhibits and oral evidence on record and rendered a judgment observing that it is not at all
a public temple. It is true that the members of public are visiting the temple and worshipping the idols installed therein. Mere visiting of devotees in
a temple will not alter the character of the temple as a private temple. It is further observed by the trial Court and also mentioned in the judgment
that the appreciation of oral evidence on record would go a long way to show that the puja was performed for the idol of Swamigal alone and even
though the idol of Lord Muruga, along with other idols of deities, are available in the temple, it cannot be stated that it is Lord Muruga''s temple. In
Soundharathammal v. M.A.B.M. Sangham 1990 L W 333, it is held that in a tomb or Samadhi merely because Vel (spear) of Lord Subramania
and idol of Lord Vinayaga were available, it would not alter the character of tomb or Samathi. It is further held in paragraph 13 of the said
judgment, which is extracted below:
Though there is evidence to show that the public have been visiting the institution during Gurupuja festival, etc., and also giving contributions for the
performance of the festival etc., the evidence falls short of the requisite standard to hold that they had been using the place for worship as of right.
It is needless to say that merely because the members of the public are allowed to attend religious festivals and ceremonies, it cannot be
straightway said that such user was due to an inherent or acquired right of the public to visit the shrine and offer worship. In various decisions, it
has been repeatedly held that the mere fact that Hindu worshipers have been freely admitted to the temple does not prove the temple to be a public
institution, because the consonance of Hindu sentiment and practice is not to turn away worshipers even in private temples vide: Bhagwan Din V.
Harroop V. State of Bihar V. Biseshwar Das and Chennammal V. Commr. H.R. & C.E. On account of all these features, the view of the appellate
Judge that Sri Suruliandavar, though a samadhi at its inception, had evolved into a public temple, cannot be sustained.
The learned Counsel for the respondents Mr. M.S. Balasubramania Iyer has drawn the attention of this Court to a decision of the Apex Court
in the case of Gurpur Guni Venkataraya Narashima Prabhu and Others Vs. B.G. Achia, Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment, Mangalore and Another, , wherein it is held that the law is now well settled that the mere fact that the public have not been freely
admitted to the temple cannot mean that Courts rightly infer dedication to the public. Learned Counsel for the respondents also placed much
reliance upon a Division Bench of decision this Court reported in S. Kannan and Others Vs. The All India Sai Satnaj (Registered), , in which after
referring to a line of decisions on the subject, in paragraph 18 of the said judgment, it is held as follows:
The essential features of a temple have been referred to by Viswanatha Sastri, J., in T.R.K. Ramaswami Servai and Anr. v. The Board of
Commissioners for the Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras, through its President, which arose out of the difference of opinion of Satyanarayana
Rao, J., and Govinda Menon. J., At page 516, Viswanatha Sastri. J., observed as follows:
In the case of a temple it becomes a place of public religious worship when the idol was installed and consecrated and the pranaprathishta or
vivification ceremony was performed. Until then, it is elementary knowledge that the image does not become an object of worship. The deity does
not begin to reside in the idol (the visible image) until the consecration or the appropriate ceremony is completed.... Unless and until these
ceremonies are gone through, the place where the idol is installed, and the idol itself does not become a fit object of religious worship.
The above said decisions throw much light on the subject. The initial presumption that a temple is a public temple can be rebutted by the party
who claims that it is a private temple by establishing the fact affirmatively by clinching testimony. The point to consider whether a temple is a public
temple and whether it is dedicated to public religious worship and that the public have free access to the same is a matter of right. Otherwise, it will
be a private temple only.
To ascertain whether the suit temple is a Public Religious Institution, the intention of the Founder of the Trust and the recitals in the Trust Deed
have to be looked into. A reading of Ex.A.4 would enlighten a fact that there is no specific mention to the effect that the proposed temple had to
be dedicated to the public. It is also to be noticed here that the founder has not provided for inclusion of any of the outsiders in the Trust Board.
The only one stipulation which is connected with the public involvement is the 5th clause in the Trust Deed which reads that the Founder as the first
hereditary Trustee shall appoint a Thiruppani Committee for the purpose for raising subscription for the construction of the temple and of
supervising the construction. The subscriptions are limited by the Founder only to the construction of the temple and nothing more. Nowhere in the
Trust Deed, it is found that there shall be receipt of donations, subscriptions or offerings from the devotees or public in a perennial manner. There is
no hundiyal in the temple. As per Clause 4 of the Deed, the function of the Tiruppani Committee is only limited to the construction of temple and
supervising the same. Even if an outsider is intended to be included in the Tiruppani Committee, still, it would not attract any character of a public
temple, since no monetary benefit is supposed to be derived through him.
As adverted to supra, the donations and subscriptions from the devotees shall be raised for construction of temple and mandapam for the
Swamigal in the land where the idols of the Swamigal and Lord Muruga, Lord Vinyagar and other deities are located. It is to be borne in mind,
afterwards the Trust Deed does not stipulate anything for collection of any donation for performing Nithya Pujas, worship, periodical poojas and
Utchavams. The Founder has directed the Trustees to make all proper and necessary arrangements for the performance of the above said
activities. Nothing could be inferred from the Trust Deed that the intention of the Founder was to make it as a Public Religious Institution. More
particularly speaking, he has named the Trust as ""Srimath Pamban Kumaragurudasa Swamigal Temple Trust"". This single instance is sufficient and
it constitutes a valid ground to gather the intention of the Founder which was for establishing a Trust after the name of Swamigal. The tenor of the
Deed also goes to the effect that the temple in future shall be called as ""Srimath Pamban Kumaragurudasa Temple"" alone and nothing else.
In the written statement, it is mentioned that the institution was originally known as ""Arulmigu Mayuraperumal Sri Kumaraguru Swamigal
Devasthanam"" and now the respondents are attempting to show it as a private temple by depicting it as ""Pirappan Valasai Kumaragurudasa Trust"".
The learned Counsel for the appellants also vouchsafe the pleading by contending as such. There is no record to show that at any point of time the
temple was called as ""Arulmigu Mayuraperumal Sri Kumaraguru Swamigal Devasthanam"". Even at the inception, it was named as ""Srimath
Pamban Kumaragurudasa Temple"" as evident from Trust Deed. Hence, the above said contention ought to be discountenanced.
Another leaf of contention on behalf of the appellants is to the effect that the averments in the plaint would show that ""Srimath Pamban
Kumaragurudasa Temple"" is regarded as an incarnation of God and that worship of a saintly person is also regarded as worshipping God and that
without presence of any plea in this regard in the plaint, the appellants have come forward with an imaginary notion that the plaintiffs have pleaded
as if ""Swamigal"" was incarnation of God. In fact, it is not so.
The control and management of the temple has been retained by the Trustees themselves. The formulation of the principles by the Supreme
Court as narrated below could be taken as bitumen''s test to ascertain whether the temple is a public or a private one in the circumstances of the
case. It is reiterated that it is not specifically stated in the Deed that the temple is dedicated to the public. It is argued on behalf of the respondents
that nobody has been examined to show that the public are having easy access into the temple and that the members of the public are making
contributions for the maintenance of the temple. The Supreme Court in Radhakanta Deb v. Commissioner, (1981) 2 SCR 826 , has set out the
following four tests for deciding, as to whether a temple is public or private. They are as follows:
(1) Whether the user of the temple by the members of the public is of right,
(2) whether the control and management vest either in a large body of persons or whether the members of the public and the Founder do not retain
any control over the management,
(3) whether the dedication of the properties is made by the Founder, who retains the control and management of the temple and the properties and
(4) where the evidence shows that the Founder of the temple did not make any stipulation for offerings or contributions to be made by the
members of the public to the temple, that would be an important intrinsic circumstance to indicate the private nature of the temple.
While the affairs of the suit temple are subjected to the test formulated by the Supreme Court, necessary corollary would be that the suit
temple is private in nature. In view of the above said analytical study of the case and in the light of the well-settled weighty judicial pronouncements,
it has to be held that the suit temple is a private temple. This point is answered in negative.
Point No:2. A defence is raised in the written statement that even though the Secretary of Mahathejomandalam at Thiruvanmiyur is shown as
the Secretary of the Trust for the time being, he has not been impleaded as a party and hence, the suit is not maintainable for non-joinder of
necessary party. The said contention is far from acceptance and cannot have legs to stand. No cause of action has arisen as against the said
Secretary and nor any relief is prayed for as regards him. Hence, there is no necessity to implead him in the suit. Since there is nothing to be finally
adjudicated in his presence, his appearance need not be brought on record. This point is answered against the appellants.
Point No 3: Even though it is pleaded in the written statement that the suit claim has been barred by time, it has not been specifically mentioned
as to how the claim of the plaintiff''s has been barred by time. The appeal petition in A.P. No. 39 of 1985 was disposed of on 16.09.1988. The
statute does not provide for any other representation or appeal before any of the superior authorities above the rank of the first appellant. The
respondents have knocked at the doors of the Civil Court. Hence, no question of time bar of the claim of the respondents would arise. The point is
ordered as such.
Point No 4: Yet another defence advanced by the appellants in their written statement is that the suit is not maintainable since no notice u/s 80
CPC was issued. If there was no statutory appeal preferred before the statutory authorities prescribed in the Act and if the respondents had
instituted the suit claiming remedy before the Civil Court without exhausting the remedies available in the Act, then it can be considered whether
non- issuance of notice u/s 80 CPC, would form a ground for dismissal of the suit. Conversely, in this case, the authorities to whom Section 80
CPC notice has to be issued have already decided the matter and passed in the impugned proceedings. Hence, there remains nothing for the
respondents to seek any relief from the appellants. As such, no notice u/s 80 CPC need be issued to the appellants before initiating the
proceedings before the Civil Court. This point is answered as above.
Point 5: I have heard both the parties with rapt attention I have critically analysed the relevant documents which are necessary and scrutinised
the oral evidence on record as well as the circumstances of this case. In view of the judicial opinions rendered by the Supreme Court and this
Court as well, I have reached a conclusion that the suit temple is a private temple and the appellants cannot lay their hands on its administration and
management, since Ex.P.4 is more exhaustive in this regard. In such view of the matter, the impugned proceedings under Exs.A.18 and 19 deserve
to be set aside and they are accordingly set aside.
Interference with the well merited judgment of the trial Court is not at all warranted and its observations and findings are confirmed. They do
not suffer from any legal infirmity.
In fine, the appeal which is bereft of merit and accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs.