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

Citation: [1973] 1 S.C.R. 584 · Decided: 04-05-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. HEGDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

584 
T.D.GOPALAN 
v. 
THE COMMISSIONER OF HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARI· 
TABLE ENDOWMENTS, MADRAS 
. 
~ 
May 4, 1972 
[K. S. HEGDB AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
Mudras Hi11d11 Religious Endowments 
Act (2 of 1927), s. 9(12)-
Templt, whethe1· public or privak-CharlicteriJ·tr'cs for detern1inatlon of. 
'1be members of the family of the plaintiff who belonged 
to 
the 
"1uwbtra community had construe~ a Mandapam on land of whitoh 
they were the owners. 
There were a Oarbha Oriha in front of the malt-
dapam, o!Dne idols called Dwarabalakaa on either side 'and implement.. 
neee8W'y for offering puja in the mandapam. But there were no Dwa}a•· 
1hamba, Balipeeda or Gopuram. The authorities under the Madras Hindu 
Religious Endowments Act, 1927, held that the mandapam was a public 
temple within the meaning of the Act. A suit filed for a declaration that 
it wa,, a private temple was decreed by the trial court, but in appeal, the 
High Court held that it was a public temple, on the grounds that, the 
members of the public had been worshipping at the shrine without let or 
hindrance, and that the temple was being run only by contributions -and 
by benefactions obtained from members Of the P,uhlic. 
Allowing the appeal to this Court, 
HELD : (1) According to the definition in the Act a public temp.e 1s 
n place by \Vhatever designation known used as a place of public rcligiou!\ 
worship and dedicated or used as of right by the Hindu community or a 
section thereof .ls a place religious worship. [592C] 
The Saurashtra community maintained a tradition of havin& private 
tempJe,. 
In the present cose, the management and control over the man-
dapam \Va~ at all times with some or other members of the 
plaintiff's 
family. 
The trial court rightly approached the evidence, oral as well a! 
documentary on the principle that once the private character of the temple 
was established stronger proof was necessary to hold that the temple was 
>ubscqucntly dedicated to the public. 
The evidence 
produced by the 
parties was carefully cor.sidercd and analysed, and, in discussing 
the 
evidence, the trial court gave detailed reasons for accepting or rejecting 
the evidence of a particular witness. 
[587C-E; 590FJ 
·rte trin.1 court held that 'there was no satisfactory evidence that any 
donations had ever been collected from members of the public; that there 
was no evidence to establish that the deity was ever ·taken out in proce!-
sion or that any person who \Vas not a member of the !family had ever 
>JerformcJ any religious festival in the temple; and that the case set out 
hy the defendant in the pleadings that thero had been user of the temple 
by members of the Saurashtra community 
was inconsistent 
with 
the 
evidence produced on their behalf to the effect that any member of public, 
"vhether a Sn.urashtra or non-Saurasbtra. had a right to worship therein. 
f587H; .<SSA-CJ 
(2 • The High Court was in error in reversing the finding.o of the trial 
Court.' No attempt what..aever was made by th<J High Court to discuss the 
re-a~ns \\ hich the trial court had given for not accepting the evidence of 
the defcnc~ witnesses. 
In the matter of appreciation of ev'idence if the 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
T. D. GOPALAN V. COMMR. RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS 
585 
(Grover, J.) 
trial com! had given cogent and detailed reasons for not ,.Q:epting the 
testimony of a witness, the appellate court, in all fairness !IO it, ought to 
deal with those reasons before proceeding to form a 
contrary opinion. 
Apart from this, the High Court did not coMider the evidence produc:W 
by the plaintiff (appellant) without which matters could not be properly 
appreciated or explained. The conclusions of the trial court 
receive 
support from the entire material on reciord, and this Court is not in a pooi-
tion to know on what grounds the High Court disagreed with the reasons 
which prevailed with the trial court for not relying on the evidence of 
the witnesses produced by the respondents. L589F-H; 590AJ 
(3) The High Court also erred in not attaching importance to the 
following matters : (a) the origin of the temple had been proved to be 
private, (b) the management had remained throughout in the members of 
the appeUant's family, (c) the absence of anr endowed property and (d) 
the absence of Dwajasthamba or tVagara be! or Hundial in the temple. 
[592H; 593A-BJ 
( 4) The origin of the temple, the manner in which its affairs were 
managed, the nature and extent of 

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