T.D.GOPALAN versus COMMISSIONER OF HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, MADRAS

Citation: [1966] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 154 · Decided: 05-04-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

IM 
T.D.GOPALAN 
V. 
COMMISSIONER OF HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE 
ENDOWMENTS, MADRAS 
April 5, 1966 
(M. HIDAYATVLLA!I, J. R. MUDHOLKAR, R. S. BACHAWAT AND 
J. M. SttliLAT, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India, Art. 133(1) (a) and (b)-Valu<>tion of vrover· 
ty for purpose of appeal before Supreme Court-Suit for declaration 
C 
that property was TWt a temple within meaning of Madras Act 19 
of 1951-Claim whether capable oJ valuation. 
The appellant >;Ought a declaration that certain premises belong-
ed to his family as private property and did not constitute a temple 
within the meaning of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable 
Endowments Act (19 of 1951). The District Court decreed the suit 
but the High Court found that the property in question was a temple. 
D 
The appellant then flied a petition for leave to appeal to this Court 
under Art. 133(1) (a) and (b) of the Constitution and submitted that 
the property was more than Rs. 20000 in value. The High Court dis-
missed the application on the ground, inter a!ia, that the subject 
matter of the dispute whether as a private or a public temple was 
incapable of valuation as it could have in either case no market value. 
The appellant by special leave came to this Court. 
HELD: The High Court was not right in assuming that whether 
the property was a private or a public temple, it was incapable of 
valuation. The subject-matter of the dispute had to be ascertained 
with reference to the claim made by the plaintiff in his plaint and 
since according to the plaint the property was the private property of 
the appellant's family capable of alienation, the High Court ought to 
have valued the property accordingly, [157 A, B] 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDicnoN: Civil Appeal No. 230 of 
F 
1964. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
January I I. 1961 of the Madras High Court in S. C. Petition No. 
165 of 1960. 
R. Ganapathy Iyer und R. Thiagarajan, for the appellant. 
G 
•
A. V. Ra11i;G111, for the respondent. 
). 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Shelat, J. This appeal by special leave is against the order 
of the High Court of Madras dated January 11, 1961 refusing the 
H 
certificate under Art. 1330 )(a) and (b) of the Constitution. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
GOPALAN V. COMMR. H.R.E. (S/telat, J.) 
155 
The authorities appointed under the Hindu Religious and 
Charitable Endowments Act, Madras Act II of 1927 having held 
that the premises No. 29 South Masi Street, Madurai, wherein the 
idol of Sri Srinivasaparumal and certain other idols were located 
constituted a temple within the meaning of the said Act, the appel-
lant filed an application in the District Court for a declaration 
that the said premises were private property and for an order set-
ting aside the said decision. The said application was by an order 
of the High Court converted into a suit. 
The main question in 
the suit was whether the said premises could be said to be a temple 
as defined by Madras Act 19 
of 19 51. 
The District Judge, 
Madurai, decreed the suit in favour of the appellant holding that 
the aforesaid premises did not constitute a temple and set aside 
the decision of the said authorities. On appeal, the High Court 
reversed the said judgment and decree and found that the premises 
in question constituted a temple. 
The appellant thereupon filed 
a petit'on for leave to appeal to this Court and submitted that the 
value of the subject-matter of dispute in the District Court as also 
in appeal in the High Court was more than Rs. 20,000 I· and that 
the judgment of the High Court having reversed the judgment and 
decree of the Trial Court he was entitled to leave under Art. 
l33(l)(a) and (b). 
The High Court dismissed that application on 
the following grounds: (a) that the subject-matter of the dispute, 
whether it was a private or a public temple could have no market 
value and therefore was incapable of valuation; (b) that cl. (b) of 
Art. 133(1) could not apply as the judgment and decree passed by 
it did not involve directly or indirectly a claim or question res· 
pecting property of the value of Rs. 20,000/- or more and (c) that 
the appeal did not involve any substantial question of law. 
For the time being we are concerned with grounds (a) and (b) 
and not with ground (c) as the contention raised by Mr. Ganapathy 
Iyer for the appellant was that the refusal to grant leave by the 
High Court under either of the clauses (a) and (b) of Art. 133(1) 
was not

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