NELLOR MARTHANDAM VELLALAR AND ORS. versus THE COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 920 · Decided: 30-07-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
NELLOR MARTHANDAM VELLALAR AND ORS. 
v. 
THE COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE 
ENDOWMENTS AND ORS. 
JULY 30, 2003 
(SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.) 
Religious and Charitable Endowments: 
C 
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959-
Section 107-Conslilution of India, 1950--Article 26-Trial Court holding 
that suit temple a denominational temple entitled to exemption and authorities 
have no power to interfere with administration of temple by the Community-
Firsl Appellate Court as well as High Court selling aside the order-On 
D appeal, Held: Practices and observance of the Community do not show that 
. they have common faith or profess certain religious tenet having common 
faith-Hence not a religious denomination-Also the Community could not 
establish that such denominational group has established and is maintaining 
and administering the suit temple-Further, the conduct of members of the 
community resulting in waiver of their fundamental rights-Thus, not entitled 
E to claim protection under Article 26 and Section 107--0rders of First Appellate 
Court as well as High Court upheld. 
Words and Phrases: 
"Religious denomination"-Meaning of 
F 
Appellants-plaintiffs liled suit for declaration that the suit temple is 
a denominational temple entitled to exemption under Article 26 of the 
Constitution and Section 107 of Tamil Nadu Religious and Charitable 
Endowments Act, 1959; and that the authorities had no jurisdiction to 
interfere with the administration of the temple by Vellala Community. 
G Defendant pleaded that the suit temple is a public religious institution 
under the control of the Department. Trial Court decreed the suit in favour 
of the appellants. However, it held that the Department is entitled to 
exercise powers conferred on them by law for administration of the 
institution. First Appellate Court set aside the order holding that the 
H 
920 
I 
NELi.OR MARTHANDAM VELLALAR , .. COMMR .. HINDU RELi AND CHARI. ENDOWMENTS 
92 J 
members of the Community do not form a religious denomination but are A 
merely a.sub-caste of. the Hindu religion; and that their practices and 
observance do not lead to the condusion that they have common faith or 
they profess certain religious tenet having common faith. High Court 
upheld the order of the First Appellate Court. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellants contended that the Act gets attracted only to sectarian B 
temple which are public and not private in view of Sections 1(3), 6(18) 
and 6(20); that the suit temple belongs to Vellala Com1:rnnity; that there 
is one single deity; that their own distinct customs and beliefs constitute a 
"religious denomination" and as such their right under Article 26 and 
Section 107 cannot be transgressed by the authorities; that High Court C 
erred in holding that the members of the Community have no distinct 
name and common faith; that the appellants moved the Court in 1976 as 
soon as a non-Vellala Community man was sought to be made a trustee 
and that their conduct from 1965 to 1976 cannot result in a waiver of 
fundamental rights; and that there is no presumption that the temples are 
public trusts and it must be established on evidence. 
D 
Respondents contended that the First Appellate Court on re-
appreciation of the evidence recorded a finding of fact ag~inst the 
appellants that the institution is not a denominational one and the High 
Court rightly found that the order of the First Appellate Court did not E 
call for any interference. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. It is settled positior. in law that the words "religious 
denomination" take their colour from the word 'religion'. The expression 
"religious denomination" must satisfy three requirements, it must be 
collection of individuals who have a system of belief or doctrine which they 
regard as conducive to their spiritual well-being - a common faith, a 
common organization, and designation of a distinctive name. It necessarily 
follows that the common faith of the community should be based on 
religion and in that they should have common religious tenets and the basic 
cord which connects them, should be religion and not merely 
considerations of caste or community or societal status. 1926-F-HI 
F 
G 
2.1. In the instant case, on the basis of the evidence on record, First 
Appellate Court as well as the High Court found that the community is H 
922 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [200.] SUPP. I S.C.R.

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