S. PITCHAI GANAPATHY AND ORS. versus COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 10-09-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

f 
S. PITCHAI GANAPATHY AND ORS. 
v. 
COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE 
ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959-
Section 6(20)-Religious institutions-Temples-Whether Public or private-
Requirements o.f-Distinction between-Aspects of procedure of worship-
C 
Statutory presumption in Tamil Nadu for temples as public religious 
institutions-Documentary evidence regarding title.or ownership 1wt proved-
Possession and enjoyment in the capacity of Pujari/trustee-Hence a public 
temple. 
In this appeal before the Court the question raised was whether the 
temples in dispute were private temples of the appellants' family or belong 
to second respondent's temple or sub-temple. 
Appellant claimed that temples in dispute are private temples as 
these temples had been in continuous possession and enjoyment of appellant 
and his ancestors, though the temples were situated on paramboke land 
but Collector in his proceeding recognised the land as private land of the 
appellant. Appellant's ancestors came to be in possession and enjoyment of 
temples as 'Pujari' and 
appellant's family alone worship the deities. 
Appellant's ancestors raised construction after taking loan in their name, 
and a litigation initiated in 1884 ended in their favour. 
The appellant filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner 
under section 63(a) of the Act, for declaration of title of the temples. The 
Deputy Commissioner allowed the application holding the temples as private 
temples. Second respondent preferred appeal before the appellate authority 
under section 69 of the Act which was allowed holding that the temples 
belonged to second respondent. 
Appellants filed suit under Section 70 of the Act before the Court of 
Sub-ordinate Judge seeking the grant of status as private temples to the 
suit temples and injunction to the respondent restraining him from 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
interfering with possession and enjoyment. The Court held that the title of 
the ancestors of the plaintiff to the suit property had been judicially 
recognised. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
The Respondent-defendants contended that temples in question were 
situated between other temples which facilitate the public to worship and 
so the suit-temples were public temples. Inspector's enquiry report also 
stated that suit temples have features of public temples.· The Court held 
that for public temples, there must be dedication to and for the benefit of 
Hindu Community, and the geographical situation of the suit property 
would not be sufficient to conclude that suit temples are "Private Temples" 
and that no member of Public had been examined tp establish whether the 
public worship in the said temples. 
In respect of temples in the State of Madras, there is a statutory 
presumption that these are public institutions. However, temples in question 
were ancient temples whose origin was not known and there was no evidence 
as to who founded it or built it. The Court held that there was no proof 
whether the members of public were entitled to worship in the suit-temples 
as of right and came to the conclusion that suit temples are private 
temples and not religious institutions as defined under Section 6(20) of the 
Act. 
On appeal, Single Judge of the High Court observed that in place 
like Madurai town a place adjoining Sri Meenakshi Sundraswarar Tumple 
none could claim 'Nathan right' and that the temples were situated on 
paramboke Land; the legitimate inference would be that founders of temples 
intended it to be a temple for public worship; ·that the description of 
temples probabalises that it could be a public one; that the Trial Court had 
examined the case from wrong angle to the effect that unless a dedication 
to the temple to Hindu Community is proved, the temple cannot be held to 
be a public temple. 
' 
In appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court affirmed it, against 
which the present appeal has been filed. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. The origin of the temple is not known, its location is next 
H 
to the famous Meena.kshi Amman temple. The evidence adduced on behalf 
.... 
\ 
.. 
S. PITCHAI GANAPATHY" COMM. HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT DEPT IRAJENDRA BABU, J.] 
3 
of plaintiff-appellant, was not enough to hold the temple and the properties 
A 
owned by it belo

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