9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (5) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er idols Were located was a temple within the meaning of the said Act. The District Judge decreed-the suit in favour of the appellant but the High Court, on appeal, reversed that judgment and passed a decree holding that the premises constituted a temple. The appellant thereupon filed a petition for leave to appeal to this Court but the High Court refused to grant the certificate. The matter was brought to this Court. By a judgment which is reported in T. D. Gopalan v. Commr. of Hindu Religious Charitable Endowments, Madras [1966] Suppl. S.C.R. 154 5 87 this Court directed that the subject matter of the dispute should be ascertained with reference to the claim made by the plaintiff in his plaint. Consequently the valuation of the property should have been done according to the claim made in the plaint, namely, that the property was private property of the family capable of alienation. Thereafter the High Court granted a certificate on determination of the value of the suit property. The only question which had to be decided by the District Court and the High Court was whether the property in dispute was a private Mandapam and not a public temple. The District Judge appointed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to establish the dedication of the temple to the public by producing evidence on the following points: (1) Subscriptions were collected by G. Rama Ayyangar and his descendants from the public because the members of the Thoguluva family stopped giving any financial help to the temple; (2) Shops in the front Mandapam were constructed with public donations and even for the Kumbabishekan public funds were collected; (3) D.W. 6 who did not belong to the Thoguluva family was doing the Mandagapadi; (4) There used to be a procession on Vaikunta Ekadasi day the expenses of which were met by D.W. 7; (5) There were jewels and other articles used for worship donated by members of public which were in the custody of Srimathigal Sangam; (6) On each of the Navaratri days people who did not belong to the Thoguluva family did the Ubhayam; (7) The worshippers had been making offerings during the daily pooja as of right and were participating in the daily Neivedyams, (8) That there was a Nagara, bell and Hundial in the suit temple; (9) That there was Utsava idol in the suit Mandapam, The learned District Judge found: D.Ws. 3, 4 and 8 who belonged to the Thoguluva family h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c whether a Saurashtra or a non-Saurashtra had a right to workship there. The case as laid in the pleadings and as developed in the evidence was thus inconsistent. The High Court observed that the origin and history of the shrine could not be traced with any degree of continuity owing to the paucity of the evidence on the record. Reference was, however, made to the auction sale. It was not disputed before the High Court that the property formed the subject matter of the court sale comprised the suit property. Before the High 589 Court the plaintiff relied on Ext. B-1 for two purposes : (1) It showed that the property was private secular property and (2) the title to the property became vested in Thoguluva Tirumalliyan and members of his family. The observation of the High Court on these contentions was, the document, Ext. B-1 (a) lends considerable support to these contentions of the plaintiff . The High Court, however, proceeded to note that in the description of the property in Ext. B-1 there was a mention of Garbha Graha Prakaram and vacant site etc. These terms were generally associated with only public temples. According to the High Court there was no evidence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... witness the appellate court in all fairness to it ought to deal with those reasons before proceeding to form a contrary opinion about accepting the testimony which has been rejected by the trial court. We are, therefore, not in a position to know on what grounds the High Court disagreed with the reasons which prevailed with the learned District Judge for not relying on the evidence of the witnesses produced by the defendants. It seems that the approach of the High Court was also some- what influenced by the observations of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Mundancheri Koman v. Achuthan Nair Others that in the greater part of the Madras Presidency private temples were practically unknown and the presumption was that the temples and their endowments formed public religious trusts. This was, however, not the case in Malabar where large tarwads often established private temples for their own use. Finally the High Court held that the temple was a public temple. After stating some other facts which were found, presumably after believing the evidence produced by the defendant, the High Court made two observations which may be reproduced :- (1) Admittedly the members ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the gifts received by it, rights exercised by devotees in regard to worship therein, the consciousness of the manager and the consciousness of the devotees themselves as to the public character of the temple were factors that went to establish whether a temple was public or private. Mr. Natesan says that if the evidence of the witnesses produced by the District Judge then there will be hardly any features or circumstances barring some of the physical features of the temple and the fact that people have been allowed to worship and take part in the festivals and ceremonies and even to make some offerings, (though without their having the right to worship in the temple) which would be sufficient to make a temple which was private in origin a public temple. According to Mr. Natesan even the witnesses of the defendants had shown consciousness of the temple beng private. He has laid a great deal of emphasis on the absence of any property attached to the temple which might be endowed. He says that admittedly only two shops were build by the family and out of the rents received from those shops together with other contributions made by the members of the family the expenses of the temp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. A. V. Rangam who appears for the contesting respondent has endeavoured to take us through the evidence of the witnesses for demonstrating that the reasons given by the card the testimony of the defendants witnesses. But we are learned District Judge were neither cogent nor sufficient to disunable to agree with him that the appreciation of evidence by the learned Judge was open to criticism as suggested by him. Apart from this the High Court did not consider the evidence produced by the plaintiff without which many matters could not be properly appreciated or explained. The other finding of the' High Court that the temple was being run by contributions and benefactions obtained from members of the public was also based mainly on the evidence produced by the defendants. In our 593 opinion the conclusion of the learned District Judge on that point receives more support from the entire material on the record It is significant that the High Court did not attach sufficient importance to three matters which, in the present case, were of material consequence. The first was that the origin of the Mandapam had been proved to be private. The second was that its management had remained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
