R. M. SUNDARAM @ MEENAKSHISUNDARAM versus SRI KAYAROHANASAMY AND NEELAYADHAKSHI AMMAN TEMPLE (THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER) NAGAPATTINAM, TAMIL NADU

Citation: [2022] 11 S.C.R. 475 · Decided: 11-07-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AJAY RASTOGI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
475
   [2022] 11 S.C.R. 475
475
R. M. SUNDARAM @ MEENAKSHISUNDARAM
v.
SRI KAYAROHANASAMY AND NEELAYADHAKSHI
AMMAN TEMPLE (THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
NAGAPATTINAM, TAMIL NADU
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3964-3965 of 2009)
JULY 11, 2022
[AJAY RASTOGI AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Act, 1959 – ss. 116(2)(xii), 108 – Dedication of Jewellery –
Specific Endowment – Adorning the Deity – Appellant’s case that
‘M’ licensed the suit jewellery to be kept in the Kudavarai (safe
vaults) of the Temple (respondent) – Appellant claimed that the
suit jewellery was inherited by him as an adopted son of ‘M’ –
Held: As far as endowment of the suit jewellery is concerned,
there are concurrent findings of fact by the three courts in favour
of the respondent and against the appellant – The dedication of
the suit jewellery does not require an express dedication or
document, and can be inferred from the circumstances –
Kudavarai is not a public vault where people keep their personal
jewellery, and the suit jewellery kept in it since 1894 was always
and only used for adorning the Temple deity for ten days at the
Adipooram festival – Suit jewellery was a ‘specific endowment’
for the performance of the specific service of adorning the deity
and it was a charity in favour of the Temple – The involvement
of the family of the appellant was limited and restricted to
retaining the keys of the Kudavarai and the iron safe which were
to be opened at the time of the festival – It is crystal clear that
there was a specific endowment of the suit jewellery way back in
1894 and the challenge made by the appellant has no legs to
stand on and is totally devoid of merit – Appellant restrained
from interfering in any manner with the right of the Temple
authorities to take out the suit jewellery from the Kudavarai
whenever the occasion demands.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – s. 11 – Res judicata –
Constructive Res judicata – Or. II, r.2 – The suit was dismissed
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
476
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 11 S.C.R.
for technical reasons, which decision is not an adjudication on
merits of the dispute that would operate as res judicata on the
merits of the matter – Further, to succeed and establish a prayer
for res judicata, the party taking the said prayer must place on
record a copy of the pleadings and the judgments passed,
including the appellate judgment which has attained finality – It
is accepted that the second appeal filed by the respondent was
dismissed, giving liberty to the respondent to file a fresh suit
with a prayer of declaration of title/endowment in respect of the
suit jewellery – The liberty granted was not challenged by the
appellant – Hence, the bar of constructive res judicata/ Order II
Rule 2 of the Code is not attracted.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. In the context of the present case and the facts
recorded above, it is clear that the suit jewellery was a ‘specific
endowment’ for the performance of the specific service of
adorning the deity, Sri Neelayadhakshi Amman, to be taken
out in the Temple car and ratham in a grand procession during
the Adipooram festival. Further, as explained below, it was a
charity in favour of the Temple and was for performance of a
religious charity. The involvement of the family of the appellant
was limited and restricted to retaining the keys of the Kudavarai
and the iron safe which were to be opened at the time of the
festival of Adipooram and the suit jewellery was to be taken
out for the specific purpose of adorning the deity, Sri
Neelayadhakshi Amman. [Para 22][495-D-E]
2. It must be held that the case of the appellant that there
was no endowment or specific endowment must fail and has no
legs to stand on. The dedication of the suit jewellery does not
require an express dedication or document, and can be inferred
from the circumstances, especially the uninterrupted and long
possession of the suit jewellery by the respondent/Temple.
The private character of the jewels had extinguished long back
and the appellant has no basis to claim that the suit jewellery
was inherited by him from his adoptive parents. The endowment
is clearly public in nature and for the purposes of performing
religious ceremonies. As confirmed by three courts, with which
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
477
we are in agreement, the suit jewellery was dedicated for a
specific purpose and can only be used during the performance
of the religious ceremony during the Adipooram festival.[

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