1987 (1) TMI 500 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Beri Chetty community constitutes a religious denomination.
2. Whether the suit temple is a denominational temple.
3. Validity of the compromise decree dated 24.9.1963.

Summary:

1. Whether the Beri Chetty community constitutes a religious denomination:
The plaintiffs claimed that the Beri Chetty community is a religious denomination following the tenets of Sri Dharmasivacharya Mutt. However, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove that they are a religious denomination. The court noted that the term "religious denomination" is not defined in any enactments or the Constitution. It examined various definitions and concluded that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a common faith, organization, or distinctive name. The evidence showed that the Beri Chetty community did not have a "Guru" after Dharmasivacharya left in 1876, and the rituals in the suit temple were not different from other public temples. Therefore, the plaintiffs did not meet the criteria for being a religious denomination.

2. Whether the suit temple is a denominational temple:
The court examined the history and management of the suit temple and found that it was not established by a religious leader for the spiritual benefit of the Beri Chetty community. The temple was constructed by a member of the community and managed by the Vaniga Vaisyar, not exclusively by the Beri Chetty community. The court also noted that the temple rituals were conducted by Brahmin priests, and the public had access to the temple. Therefore, the suit temple was not a denominational temple intended for the spiritual benefit of the Beri Chetty community.

3. Validity of the compromise decree dated 24.9.1963:
The plaintiffs argued that the compromise decree was not binding on the community because it was entered into by their counsel without proper authority. The court found that the counsel for the plaintiffs had acted with authority and that the community had accepted the terms of the compromise for nearly five years. The court noted that the community had not taken timely action to set aside the compromise decree and had allowed the appointment of trustees by the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department. Therefore, the court saw no reason to set aside the compromise decree.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the suit with costs, finding no merit in the plaintiffs' claims. The Beri Chetty community was not recognized as a religious denomination, the suit temple was not a denominational temple, and the compromise decree was upheld.