G. JAYALAKSHMI & ORS versus ARULMIGHU PAZKHIKANCHIYA VINAYAGAR & ITS TEMPLE

Citation: [2009] 12 S.C.R. 14 · Decided: 28-07-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 12 S.C.R. 14 
A 
G. JAYALAKSHMI & ORS. 
V. 
ARULMIGHU PAZKHIKANCHIYA VINAYAGAR & ITS 
TEMPLE 
(Civil Appeal No. 5081 of 2009) 
B 
JULY 28. 2009 
[S.8. SINHA, G.S. SINGHVI AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] 
Suit - Suit for declaration that the suit property (shop) 
... 
c belonged to a public temple -
Decree for permanent 
injunction to restrain defendants from sel!ing or alienating the 
property also sought - Dismissal of by trial court - High Court 
decreeing the suit on the ground that in earlier round of 
litigation the temple and its properties were declared public 
D in nature - On appeal, held : Nature of suit property and the 
property of temple are different - Finding of fact is required 
to be arrived at, for ascertaining identification as well as 
~ 
nature and character of the land - Matter remitted to High 
Court for deciding the matter afresh. 
E 
The question involved in the present appeals was 
whether the property in dispute belonged to the temple, 
which in an earlier round of litigation was declared as a 
public temple, or to a private litigating party. 
F 
Allowing the appeal and remanding the matter to 
High Court, the Court 
HELD 1. A temple may be declared as a public temple 
inter alia when a grant is made in favour of the public by 
G the owner of the property although the temple is 
constructed by a private person, or if the temple is 
constructed on Government land; and if the public in 
general have a right of worship the Deity as contra 
distinguished from the right of worship in a temple which 
H 
14 
G. JAYALAKSHMI v. ARULMIGHU PAZKHIKANCHIYA 
15 
VINAYAGAR & ITS TEMPLE 
is confined to a family or a community. If the suit A 
..\ 
properties had been the subject matter of partition and if 
the same had nothing to do with the temple in question 
it would be one thing; however, it will be a different thing 
if the temple and the suit properties in and around the 
same had all along been treated as temple properties. 
B 
[Para 13] [20-H; 21-A-B] 
2. The nature of the property in respect of the temple 
./ 
as also the suit properties are different. One of the 
questions which should have been posed and answered c 
by the High Court is as to whether like the land on which 
the temple was constructed, the suit properties were also 
situated on any public land or not. The High Court should 
have also gone into other aspects of the matter in the 
backdrop of documents produced by the parties and 
should not have disposed of the appeal simply by relying 
D 
upon some observation made with regard to temple 
)-
properties in the earlier round of litigation by the court. 
A finding of fact was required to be arrived at upon 
consideration of the pleadings of the parties and the 
doc1Jments produced by them, for the purpose of E 
ascertaining the identification of land as well as the 
nature and character thereof. [Paras 17,18 and 21] [21-F-
1 
H; 22-A-B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
F 
5081 of 2009. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 25.4.2006 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Madras-Madurai bench in Appeal Suit 
No. 396 of 2000. 
G 
1 
K.V. Mohan for the Appellant. 
E. Padmanabhan, V. Prabhakar, Asoka K. Sadhotcham, 
Revathy Raghavan, R. Nedumaran for the Respondents. 
H 
16 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. Leave granted. 
1. Some of the defendants in the original suit, who 
purchased the suit property from the defendant Nos. 1-3, are 
B before us questioning the judgment and order dated 25.4.1996 
passed by a learned single Judge of the High Court in Appeal 
Suit No.396/2000 whereby and whereunder judgment and 
decree dated 12.07.2000 passed by the learned Subordinate 
c 
D 
Judge, Sivakasi in O.S. No.242 of 1999 was set aside. 
2. Inter se relationship between the plaintiffs and the 
predecessor-in- interest of the original defendant Nos. 1-3 is 
not in dispute. It would appear from the following genealogical 
tree: 
Muthuswamy Othuwar 
I 
I 
I 
Seeni Othuwar 
Gnana Othuwar 
~-----------1 
E Muthuswamy Othuwar 
Kulanthaively Othuwar 
I 
1~----+------___,f-------+ 
Seenia Pillai 
F 
I 
Gnanam 
Pillai 
Muthuramalingam Pillai 
I 
I 
Ranthinam 
I 
Gomathi 
Mariappa , 
Pillai 
Panchavarnam 
Shanmugam 
Pillai 
I 
Visalaksh1 
G Ammal 
Muniasamy 
I 
(1st Plaintiff) 
(4th Defendant)! 2nd Plaintiff 
3rd Plaintiff 
1-'--'-~~l~~~~I 
Ravindran 
Aathi Naryaanan 
1st Defendant 
2nd Defendant 
Sreenivasan 
3rd Defendant 
H 
3.

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