Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1972 (10) TMI 139

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and a new temple was built facing the Agraharam. The Kumbbabhishekam was performed in 1963 as per the invitation, Ext. A-3. The Moolavar (deity) at the site of the old temple could not be traced, but the Utsavar (who comes out) was available and the Utsavar was installed in the new temple. Some stones of the old temple were utilized for the construction of the new temple. Some copper plates were also utilized. 2. At the time of the formation of the new temple a Thengalai namam was put on the forehead of the Utsavar. It was not there before. This seems to have annoyed some of the Vadagalai people. Whether on this account or for some other reason, many of the inhabitants of the village decided in 1966 to renovate the old temple at its site .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... stated in paragraph 7 of his judgment- The fact remains that the Moolavar of the old temple that was in existence in the suit was not found. In other words the Moolavar of the old temple that was in existence in the suit site was not the idol installed in the newly built temple. It appears that because of the fact that the Utsavar idol found in debris of the old temple in the suit site had been installed in the newly built temple, the respondents seek to claim that the newly built temple is entitled to claim the suit site. Merely because such an idol was installed in the newly built temple and some materials of the old temple had been made use of putting up the new temple, it cannot be said that the suit site has become the property of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is right. Nobody suggests for a moment that there is no efficacy or sacredness in the deity installed in the new temple. The point at issue is something different and has already been stated, namely, whether in view of the installation of Sri Kariamanicka Perumal in the newly built temple, the old site has lost its sanctity altogether in the sense that no attempt can lawfully be made to renovate the temple there. The important point which in my opinion, answers this question is the fact that the Moolavar is apparently still embedded in the site of the old temple and the existence of the Moolavar is enough to justify the attempt of the villagers to try to renovate the old temple at the same site. Once it is borne in mind that this is the na .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to renovate the temple at its original site. 9. The next case relied on by the learned counsel is the decision of Seshagiri Ayyar and Moore, JJ., in Venkatasubban Pattar v. Ayyathurai, 37 Mad LJ 554 = (AIR 1920 Mad 246). There a Sivalingam was stolen. The majority of the worshippers wanted to replace it by another. A suit for injunction restraining them was brought. It was held that the majority view must prevail. The present case is clearly distinguishable. 10. The next case relied on by the learned counsel is the decision of Devadoss, J., in Venkatachala Mudaliar v. Sambasiva Mudaliar, 52 Mad LJ 288 = (AIR 1927 Mad 465). There the site of an old Vinayagar temple had become insanitary and a large majority of the villagers decided to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... temple at the old site. Actually, Ex. A.1 itself shows that the father of the defendant was dedicating the property only to the deity at the old site and expected it to be renovated, but till then he promised to utilize it for some other suitable religious worship. Hence, if it is possible to renovate the temple at the old site, the endowment under Ex. A.1 could still be utilized therefor. 14. I also agree with the learned Subordinate Judge that this is not a proper case to grant an injunction, because the plaintiffs waited for nearly a year after the construction began. I do not wish, however, to say anything on the question whether the plaintiffs are the duly constituted trustees of Sri Kariamanicka Peruml temple (new). 15. One of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates