LexHIS HOLINESS SRI VISHWOTHAMA THIRTHA SWAMIAR OF SODE MUTT versus THE STATE OF MYSORE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS HIS HOLINESS SRI VISHWOTHAMA THIRTHA SWAMIAR OF SODE MUTT THE STATE OF MYSORE 189 (B. P. 8rNHA, C. J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.) Temple-Large number of pilgrims visi'.ting and worship- ing-If private or puhlic-Madras Temple Entry Authorisatio11 AC!, 19'7( Mad. V. of 1947), s. 2( 1). The shrine in suit which was originally founded by Shri Madhavacharya, a Hindu saint was managed for a long time in rotation by the heads of eight Mutts which were also founded by the said saint for ei~ht of his disciples. Large number of pilgrims from all over the country visited this shrine without any restraint, took part in the worship there, made offerings to the deity and received the prasad. The institu- tion was managed with the monetary aid received from the State and contributions raised by the said heads of the ei_ght Mutts from devotees resident in different parts of the country. The question arising for decision was whether the shrine in question was a ''temple" within the meaning of s. 2(1) of the Madras Temple Entry Authorization Act, 1947. Held, that in the absence of good evidence that a temple was a private one, the mere fact that it was visited by a large number of persons among the Hindu Public without any res .. traint for a number of years, was ~ood evidence or the fact that the temple had been dedicated to the Hindu Public and was for its benefit. Vibhudapriya v. Lakshmindra, (1927) L. R. 54 I. A. 228, referred to. BahuBhaqwan Din v. Gir Har Saroop, (1939) L. R. 67 I. A. I, :ind Sri Venkataramana lJemrau v. State of Mysore, [1958] S.C.R. 895, followed. In the instant case the finding that the Hindu Public had a right to worship in the temple was sufficient to make the institution a "temp1e'' within the definition of that term in the Act. even if the temple be appurtenant to a Mutt. CrvIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 84 of 1959. A'Jlpeal from the judgment and decree dated August 17, 1954, of the Madras High Court in A. S. No. 304 of 1951. 1961 December 18. 11111 H;, Jl<lwn ,,;v......,...,,.. ThWllM Bu-omiar •f S•tk Mwt v. 190 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellants. B. R. L. Iyengar and T. M. Stn, for respandent No. I. n,s,.1 .. JM;m• 1961. December 18. The Judgment of the R.,,.,,b., v.,.1 J. Court waR d1>livered by RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J.-The only question for determination in this appeal on a. certificate granted hy thr Madras Hiph Court is whether what has been described in the plaint 1\8 Shri Krishna Mutt in Shivalli Village, in South Kanara District, is a temple as defined in s. 2( I) of thA Madras Temple Ent.ry Authorization Act, 11147 (Madras Act V of I 947), hereinafter called the Act. Sub-section (l) of a. 2 of the Act reads : " 'temple' mrans a pla.oe, by whatever name known, which is dedicated to, or for the benPfit of, or used a.s of right b}, the Hindu community or any section thereof, as a place of public religious wor1thip, anj includes subsidiary shrini>s and mantapams attached to Puch place ;" TbP Government of Madras, in exercise of of thP powers conferred on them under s. 6 of the A<'t, decided on June 3, I 948, that Shri Krishna Mntt wa.a a tt>mp le. The plaintiffs, who represent the heads of six of the eight mutts established at Udipi b:v Shri Madvacharya, instituted the suit for declaration that the Shri Krishna Mutt (not one of the eight mutts) was not such a temple and for the setting a~id" of the order of the Government of Madr1ts. The hi>ads of the other two mutts were impleaded as defendants Nos. 2 and 3. The Ftat3 of Madras is defondant No. I. Thi• State of )fadras alone> contested the 3uit and stated that the Shri Krishna Mutt was a temple as defined in the Act. The Trial Court and the High Court held in favour of the defendant's • I I • '· 2 S,C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 191 contention with the result. that the plaintiff's suit stood dismissed. The plaintiffa have therefore come up m appeal. The case of the plaintiffa-appellants as dis- closed in the plaint may first be stated. The great Saint and Savant Shri Madvacharya established the Mutt at Udipi in South Kanara District, for the propagation of the Dwaita system of thought. He himself resided there. He initiated eight disciiples and thus originated the 'Astha Mutts' (eight mutts) of Udipi. These di
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.