1970 (7) TMI 77 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of the Deputy Commissioner's power to frame a scheme under Section 64 of the Madras Act XXII of 1959.
2. Whether the settlement deed by Chockalingam Pillai created an endowment in favor of an institution or temple.
3. Necessity of prana pratishta or kumbhabhishekam ceremonies for the idols to be considered objects of public religious worship.
4. Definition and requisites of a "temple" under Section 6, Clause (20) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959.
5. The effect of the absence of specific ceremonies on the validity of an endowment.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Deputy Commissioner's Power to Frame a Scheme:

The appellant contended that the Deputy Commissioner for Religious Endowments had no power to frame a scheme under Section 64 of the Madras Act XXII of 1959. This argument was based on the claim that the settlement deed by Chockalingam Pillai did not create an endowment in favor of an institution or temple. The court had to determine if the Deputy Commissioner acted within his jurisdiction.

2. Creation of an Endowment by the Settlement Deed:

The court examined whether the settlement deed dated 24-10-1924 by Chockalingam Pillai constituted an endowment. The deed dedicated certain properties for the performance of daily pooja and other religious activities in favor of four idols. The court noted that the dedication was made for the worship of the idols by the Hindu community, fulfilling the criteria for an endowment.

3. Necessity of Prana Pratishta or Kumbhabhishekam Ceremonies:

The appellant argued that the nalvar idols were not installed and consecrated with ceremonies such as prana pratishta and kumbhabhishekam, and therefore, they could not be considered objects of public religious worship. The court referred to Hindu authorities and Agama Sastras, which prescribe elaborate ceremonies for the installation and consecration of idols. However, it concluded that such ceremonies are not essential requisites for an endowment or for the idols to be objects of public worship.

4. Definition and Requisites of a "Temple":

The court analyzed the definition of "temple" under Section 6, Clause (20) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959. The definition includes any place used as a place of public religious worship by the Hindu community, irrespective of the presence of idols or the performance of specific ceremonies. The court cited examples of Bhajana Madams and other places of worship without idols, which still qualify as temples under the Act.

5. Effect of the Absence of Specific Ceremonies on the Validity of an Endowment:

The court emphasized that an endowment can be validly created in favor of an idol or temple without the performance of specific ceremonies, provided the settlor's intention is clear. The Supreme Court's ruling in Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar was cited, which held that the absence of ceremonies does not invalidate an endowment if the dedication is clear and unambiguous.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the Deputy Commissioner had the authority to frame a scheme under Section 64 of the Madras Act XXII of 1959. The settlement deed by Chockalingam Pillai created a valid endowment in favor of the idols, and the absence of prana pratishta or kumbhabhishekam ceremonies did not negate the endowment. The place where the idols were installed qualified as a "temple" under the Act, as it was used by the public for religious worship. The appeal was dismissed, and the scheme framed by the Deputy Commissioner was upheld.