C.R. JAYARAMAN & ORS. versus M. PALANIAPPAN & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 17 S.C.R. 1140 · Decided: 18-12-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 17 S.C.R. 1140 
A 
C.R. JAYARAMAN & ORS. 
v. 
M. PALANIAPPAN & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 993 of 2002) 
" 
~~ 
DECEMBER, 18, 2008 
B 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ] 
Trusts and Charities: 
Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments 
\_ 
c Act, 1959 - Temples, private in nature or dedicated to public 
- Determination of - Case of appellant's family that temples 
built by their ancestors out of their own fund and in their own 
management - Declaration sought that said temples were 
private temples and not public temples - Rejected by Board 
D -
Courts below holding temples as public temples -
Interference with - Held: Not called for - Courts below on 
entire consideration of the materials on record held that the 
temples are public in nature - There was participation of 
members of public in darshan in the temple and in daily acts 
I 
E 
of worship or in celebrations of festive occasions - Appellants 
failed to prove successfully that temples were private in nature. 
It is the appellant's case that in the year 1890, their 
ancestor EL constructed three temples out of his own 
f'lnds. Throughout, the said ~emples were treated as their 
F 
private temples and were virtually in their management. 
The members of the public never had any right to offer 
wo.rship in the temples and the deities were never 
dedicated to the public. In 1965, appellant's mother 
. received a letter from three persons, appointed as non-
hereditary trustees of the said temples by Hindu 
G Religious and Charitable Endowments Board to hand 
over the property and records of the temples. The mother 
filed writ petition for quashing the order of appointment 
of non-hereditary trustees of the said temples. High Court 
directed the mother to file appropriate application before 
) 
H 
1140 
"' 
/ 
C.R. JAYARAMAN & ORS. v. M. PALANIAPPAN & ORS. 1141 
the Board for declaration of said temples as private 
A 
temples of the appellant's family. Mother filed an, . 
application which was dismissed. Aggrieved, appellant 
filed a suit. Trial court held that the said temples are 
public temples. High Court upheld the order. Hence the 
present appeal. 
B 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1.1. In the instant ·case, all the Courts below, 
on entire consideration of the materials on record, had ' 
held that the temples in question are public in nature, and 
the appellants had failed to prove successfully that the ' C 
same were private in nature. There is no infirmity in the 
findings of the High Court as well as of the trial court. 
Thus, it is difficult to interfere with such finding of fact in 
the· exercise of power under Article 136 of the 
Constitution of India. [Paras 7 and 8] [1150-E-G] 
. D 
1.2. The submission that the Board was not 
empowered under the Madras Hindu Religious and 
· Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 to declare a private 
temple as a public temple cannot be accepted. A perusal 
of the relevant provisions of the Act would clearly show 
E 
that there is no bar for the Board to declare a particular 
ter:nple as a public one. From a plain reading of the order 
of tt~e Board, the Board had categorically held on 
materials sufficient to prove that the aforesaid temples 
were in fact public temples and not private temples as 
F 
allged by the appellants. However, the suit filed by the 
appellants which gave rise to filing of the instant appeal 
in this Court was for a declaration that the aforesaid 
temples were private in nature and not public temples. 
Therefore, it was for the appellants to prove on evidence 
that such temples were private in nature. [Paras 4] (1145-
G 
E-G] 
1.3. In the instant case, it has been proved beyond 
-\ 
doubt that public offerings were accepted during the 
1 
normal days of worship by the Poojari, and that the 
members of the public visited the temple often as a matter H 
1142 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2008] 17 S. C.R. 
A of right without any hindrance or obstruction. Though the 
submission that as per the Hindu customs, they could 
not stop the general public from coming inside the temple 
even though the temple is a private temple has some 
\., 
weight in the light of the circumstances, yet it cannot be 
8 the sole deciding factor to determine whether a temple 
is in fact a private cme or dedicated to the public. [Para 
5)(1147-A-C] 
1.4. The Poojari of the said temples deposed before 
the trial court and stated categorically in his deposition, 
c which was accepted by the High Court also, that th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.