M.S. V. RAJA AND ANR. versus SEENI THEVAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 513 · Decided: 14-08-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Directions issued

Judgment (excerpt)

M.S. V. RAJA AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
SEEN! THEVAR AND ORS. 
AUGUST 14, 2001 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] 
B 
Hindu Law: 
Tamil Nadu Hindu Reiigious & Charitable Endowment Act, 1959 : 
Sections 63 (b) and 108. Management of temple-Hereditary right of- C 
Dispute regarding-Suit temple built on 'parampokh' land, adminstered and 
managed by members of a religious .denomination from time immemorial-
'Pandarams' permitted to perform 'pooja' in the temple as 'poojaries'-Suit 
by 'pandarams' that they were hereditary trustees-cum-poojaries dismissed-
Another suit at the instance of 'pandarams' that the suit temple was a public 
temple decreed by High Cou~t-Jnjunction from interfering with worship by D 
'pandarams' as per usage also granted-Correctness of-Held: There is an 
initial presumption that a temple is a public one unless rebutted by clinching 
testimony that it is a private temple-Ordinarily, a temple built on 'parampokh' 
land is a public temple-Hence, temple rightly declared as public temple-
However, members of the religious denomination has not lost their right of E 
management of the temple-'Pandarams', having lost in earlier litigation, 
cannot claim any right-Hence, injunction granted in their favour not 
sustainable. 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : Section JOO. 
Second appeal-Substantial question of /aw-Concurrent findings of 
fact-Recording of-By both the courts below without any evidence in support 
thereof-Effect of-Held : Such finding may itself be treated as a substantial 
question of law-Hence, High Court was right in upsetting such a finding. 
F 
Second appeal-Substantial question of law-Concurrent findings of G 
fact-Set aside without discussion and reasons-Held : Is patently 
unsustainable. 
Second appeal-Substantial questions of law-Formulation of-Held: 
Though substantial questions of law are not specifically and separately 
formulated, yet they may be inferred from the questions considered and H 
513 
. 
514 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A decided by the High Court. 
Words and Phrases : 
"Public temp/e"-Meaning of-In the context of Tamil Nadu Hindu 
Religious & Charitable Endowment Act, 1959. 
B 
The appellants were the members of a religious denomination and had 
been administering and managing the suit temple from time immemorial. 
The administration of the temple has always been by the trustees elected 
among the said members and at no time, the Hindu Religious and Charitable 
Endowment Department interfered with their management. The appellants 
C permitted 'pandarams' to perform 'pooja' in the temple as 'poojaries'. 
Some of the 'pandarams' joined together and filed a suit under Section 
63(b) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Act, 1959 
seeking a declaration that they were the hereditary trustees-cum-poojaries 
of the suit temple and for permanent injunction restraining the appellants 
D from interfering With their rights. The trial court dismissed the suit and the 
appeal was also dismissed by the High Court. The judgment of the High 
Courts had attained finality. 
The respondents, at the instance of the 'pandarams' and for their 
benefit, filed a suit for a declaration that the suit temple was a public 
E religious institution belonging to the Hindu public in general as against the 
exclusive claim by the appellants and for injunction from interfering in 
'poojas' according to usage of 'panda rams' of the temple. The trial court 
dismissed the suit holding that the suit temple was not a public temple but 
a denominational temple belonging to the appellants. This finding was 
.. confirmed by the first appellate court. However, the High Court, in serond 
F appeal, under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, decreed the 
suit as prayed for. Hence this appeal and the Special Leave Petition. 
On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the High Court erred 
in upsetting the concurrent findings of fact exercising jurisdiction in second 
appeal without formulating any substantial questions of law as required 
G under Section 100 CPC. 
The following questions arose before this Court : 
I. Whether the suit temple was a public temple ? 
2. Whether the suit temple had been uader the management and 
H administration of the appellants? 
M.S.V. RAJA v. SEEN! IHEVAR 
SIS 
3. Whether the relief of permanent injunction so as to restrain the A 
appellants from interfering with the worship/poojas by 'pandramas' as per 
their usage could be 

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