LexPARASAMAYA KOLERINATHA MADAM, TIRUNELVELI versus P. NATESA ACHARI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011) 11 S.C.R. 475 PARASAMAYA KOLERINATHA MADAM, TIRUNELVELI v. P.NATESA ACHARI & ORS. (Civil Appeal No.8439 of 2001) SEPTEMBER 22, 2011 [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] TAMIL NADU HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1959: ss.6(13) and 6(20) - 'Math' and 'temple' - Ingredients of - Explained - Suit property comprising statue and Padukas of founder of the Math - Subsequently, idol of Goddess Meenakshi and other idols installed in the premises - Held: A B c The oral and documentary evidence led in the case clearly 0 establish that the suit property belongs to the Math and it is being used to celebrate Guru Pooja in the honour of the founder of the Math and the Mathadhipathis regularly - The idol of Meenakshiamman was installed by the 32nd Mathadhipathi of the math in the suit property - There is nothing to show that the installation was with the object of E dedicating the premises as a place of public religious worship - The suit property with the installed idols is declared to be the property of the plaintiff-Math - The possession and control of the suit property with the place of worship (Meenakshiamman temple) vests with the plaintiff Math - F Directions given as regards management of the Math - Hindu Law. The appellant Math filed a suit (C.S. No. 211983) against respondents 1 and 2 (defendants 1 and 2) and G two others for declaration of title and delivery of possession of the suit property situate in Komaleeswararpet in Chennai which included the idols installed therein. It was the case of the plaintiff-Math that 475 H 476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 11 S.C.R. A it was established c~nturies ago at Tirunelveli by Swami Anavaratha Soundaraja Perumal; the Mathadhipathi used to be elected for life by the Viswakarma community; that the suit property was owned by the Math for centuries; that the suit property was being managed by a nominee B of the Math; that the idol of goddess Meenakshi and the statue of the founder of the Math with his Padukas were installed by the Math in the suit property in the eighteenth century and were worshipped by the disciples of the Math and other devotees; that in the .year 1981 it came c to light that the persons earlier managing the property had handed over its management to defendants 1 and 2 who were attempting to claim the suit property with the Meenakshiamman idol as a temple independent of the Math, managed by the local Viswakarma communi~y 0 without the knowledge and consent of the Mathadhipathi. Defendants 1 and 2 resisted the suit contending that the suit property was the Meenakshiamman temple that was in existence for the benefit of and under the management of the members of Viswakarma community living in Komaleeswararpet in Chennai, and the plaintiff Math had E no conne'ction with the suit property. The Single Judge of the High Court decreed the suit holding that the suit property belonged to the plaintiff Math, but the Division Bench held the suit property to be a temple and, consequently, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved, the plaintiff- F Math filed the appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 There are two necessary ingredients for a structure or place to be described as a temple under G the Act: (i) its use as a place of public religious worship; and (ii) dedication of the structure or place to, or for the ~enefit of, or use as of right by, the Hindu community or a section thereof, as a place of public religious worship. The mere fact that members of the public are allowed to H PARASAMAYA KOLERINATHA MADAM, TIRUNELVELI v. 4 77 P.NATESAACHARI worship at a place, will not make it a public temple. The A Hindu sentiments and the tenets of Hinduism do not normally exclude worshippers from a place of worship, even when it is private or part of a Math. Therefore, the crucial test is not whether the members of the public are permitted to worship, but whether the worship by the B members of the public is as of right by the Hindu community or any section thereof, or whether a place has been dedicated a place of public religious worship. [para 8] [488-H; 489-A-C] Goswami Shri Mahalaxmi Vahuji vs. Shah Ranchhoddas c Kalidas (Dead) & Ors. -AIR 1970 SC 2025 and TD. Gopalan vs. The Commissioner of Hindu Religions and Charitable Endowments, Madras -AIR 1972 SC 1716; Radhakanta Deb vs. The Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments, Orissa AIR 1981 SC 798 - relied
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.