1
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8439 OF 2001
Parasamaya Kolerinatha Madam, Tirunelveli ... Appellant
Vs.
P.Natesa Achari & Ors. ... Respondents
J U D G M E N T
R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J.
The appellant Math was the plaintiff in a suit (C.S.No.2/1983) filed
against the respondents 1 and 2 (defendants 1 and 2) and two others on the
file of the Madras High Court. The appellant math situated in Tirunelveli,
claims to be the owner of property bearing No.16, Chandrabanu Street,
Komaleeswararpet also described as Komaleeswaranpettai, Chennai
(described in the first schedule to the plaint) known as Parasamaya
2
Kolerinatha Madam and several idols including those of Goddess
Meenakshi, Lord Vigneshwara, Lord Murugan installed therein (described in
the second schedule to the plaint), together referred to as the `suit property'.
2. The plaint averments in brief are: The appellant is a Math established
several centuries ago at Tirunelveli by Swami Anavaratha Soundaraja
Perumal. The Mathadhipathi of the Math is elected for life by the
Viswakarma community. In the year 1922, a suit (OS No.58/1922 as the file
of the Sub-court, Tirunelveli) was filed for framing a scheme for regulating
the succession and administration of the plaintiff Math and its properties. In
the said suit, a scheme was framed by order dated 2.5.1925. The suit
property was one of the properties shown as vested in the Math in the final
decree in the said scheme suit. The suit property was owned by the plaintiff
Math for several centuries and the Head of the Math would stay there during
his visit to the city. His disciples were regularly using the premises and
staying therein. The Math premises were being managed by a nominee of the
Math. The idol of Goddess Meenakshi and the statue of the Head 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. As the Headquarters of the Math was situated at the far-away
3
Tirunelveli, the Mathadhipathi had entrusted the management of the said
Math property to nominated Agent/s who were the local elders of the
Viswakarma community. When a new Mathadhipathi was installed on
17.8.1981, he sent his agent to routinely enquire about the affairs of the
Math property in Chennai and learnt that the persons earlier managing the
property had handed over the management to defendants 1 and 2. When the
Mathadhipathi visited Chennai in 1982 and stayed in the suit property. One
R. Venugopal Achari who was appointed to look after the suit property in
the year 1963, informed the Mathadhipathi that he had handed over
management to Kanagasabapathy Achary who in turn handed over
management to defendants. When the Mathadhipathi sent word to
defendants to come and discuss the affairs of the Math, they did not turn up,
but the community people spoke to the Mathadipathi and made several
complaints about the irregular and ineffective management by defendants 1
and 2. Further inquiries revealed that defendants 1 and 2 were attempting to
claim that the suit property with the Meenakshiamman idol as a temple
independent of the Math, managed by the local Viswakarma community and
had arranged for Kumbabishekam without the knowledge and consent of the
Mathadhipathi. In view of the above, the plaintiff Math filed the said suit
and sought a declaration of title to the suit property (with the idols and
4
movables therein) and delivery thereof.
3. Defendants 1 and 2 resisted the suit. They contended that the suit
property (describing it as the Meenakshiamman temple) was a
denominational temple that has been in existence for the benefit of the
members of the Viswakarma community living in Komaleeswararpet in
Chennai. The suit property was a temple and the Math did not `exist' in the
suit property. The plaintiff Math had no connection with the suit property.
Neither the final decree nor the scheme in the scheme suit (O.S.No.58 of
1922) relating to the plaintiff Mutt was binding on the members of the
community living in Komaleeswararpet in Chennai as they were not parties
to the scheme suit. Though the temple in Komaleeswararpet was dedicated
to Goddess Meenakshiamman, as Parasamaya Kolerinatha Swami was a
great saint and Guru of Viswakarma community, the said temple was also
called by the name of the said Swami, but the plaintiff Math has nothing to
do with the suit property. The said denominational temple was under the
management of the members of the Viswakarma community through their
elected representatives. In the beginning of the twentieth century, one
Arumuga Achary was managing the affairs of the temple. Later one C. V.
Raju Achary was the trustee till 1938. From 1938, Adhimoola Achary
5
functioned as a Trustee with the assistance of a committee of members.
Kanagasabai Achari became the Trustee in 1963 and in 1969, first and
second defendants along with one more person were elected as trustees and
they were in management. The idols and statues in the temple were installed
by the members of the Viswakarma community of Komaleeswararpet and
not by the plaintiff Math. The community performed the Kumbhabhishekam
of the temple on 21.1.1983. They filed a petition in the office of the
Commissioner for Religious and Charitable Endowments for framing a
scheme for the said temple by impleading the plaintiff math as a respondent.
The property did not belong to the Math and that for more than a century,
the property has been under the absolute control of the members of the
Viswakarma community of Komaleeswararpet. As the suit property was a
temple and not a Math as defined under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious
and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (for short `the Act') and as the
plaintiff Math have nothing to do with the property, the suit was not
maintainable and was liable to be dismissed.
4. The High Court framed four issues. The main issue was whether the
plaintiff Math was entitled to the ownership of the suit property and if so
whether it was entitled to recover possession. Both sides led oral and
6
documentary evidence. After detailed consideration of the several
documents exhibited by the parties and the oral evidence, the learned Single
Judge who tried the suit, decreed the suit by judgment and decree dated
20.4.1993. He held that there was abundant evidence to show that the suit
property belonged to the plaintiff Math and it was not the property of
Viswakarma community residing at Komaleeswararpet, Chennai. He also
accepted the case of the plaintiff Math that the Thirty Second Head of the
plaintiff Math had installed the idol of the Goddess Meenakshi more than
two centuries ago. The learned Single Judge also referred to the series of
documents produced by the defendants themselves which stated that
Meenakshiamman temple was situated in Parasamaya Kolerinatha Swami
Math. The learned Single Judge held that merely because idols were
installed and worshipped in a Math premises, the property will not cease to
be a Math nor will it become a place of public religious worship.
Consequently the learned Single Judge decreed the suit granting declaration
of title and directing delivery of possession of the suit property to the
plaintiff Math.
5. Feeling aggrieved, defendants 1 and 2 filed an intra-court appeal. A
Division Bench of the High Court allowed the said appeal (OSA
7
No.29/1994) by the impugned judgment dated 29.4.1999. The division
bench held that the oral and documentary evidence established the existence
of Meenakshiamman temple in the suit property, possessing the
characteristics of a temple. The Managing Committee elected from
Viswakarma community was managing the said temple, attending to its
repairs, paying municipal taxes and conducting festivals. It held that the
characteristics of a Math were absent and the plaintiff Math had failed to
prove that the affairs of the Math alone were carried on in the premises; and
as the goddess Meenakshiamman was being worshipped by the public and
temple festivals were being regularly conducted, the finding of the learned
Single Judge that the installation of idol of Meenakshi did not extinguish the
rights of the Math, was not sustainable. The division bench held the suit
property to be a `temple' and consequently dismissed the suit. The said
judgment and decree is challenged in this appeal by special leave.
6. On the contentions urged three questions arise for consideration :
(i) Whether the suit property belongs to the Plaintiff Math?
(ii) Whether the Division Bench ignored the material documents
exhibited by plaintiffs and defendants in holding that the suit
property did not belong to the plaintiff Math?
8
(iii) Whether the property of the Math ceased to belong to the Math, as
idols were installed therein are worshipped by the members of
Viswakarma community, thereby converting it to a temple.
7. As all these questions are interconnected, we will consider them
together. We may at first refer to the definitions of the words `Math' and
`Temple' in the Act. Section 6(13) of the Act defines `Math' thus :
"Math means a Hindu religious institution with properties attached thereto
and presided over by a person, the succession to whose office devolves in
accordance with the direction of the founder of the institution or is
regulated by usage and (i) whose duty it is to engage himself in imparting
religious instruction or rendering spiritual service; or (ii) who exercises or
claims to exercise spiritual headship over a body of disciples; and includes
places of religious worship or instruction which are appurtenant to the
institution. xxx xxx"
Section 6(20) of the said Act defines the term "temple" as
"Temple means a place by whatever designation known used as a place of
public religious worship, and dedicated to, or for the benefit of, or used as
of right by, the Hindu community or of any section thereof, as a place of
public religious worship. xxx xxx"
8. The distinction between maths and temples, stated in several judicial
pronouncement has found statutory recognition in the aforesaid definitions.
There are two necessary ingredients for a structure or place to be described
as a temple under the Act. First is its use as a place of public religious
worship. Second is dedication of the structure or place to, or for the benefit
of, or use as of right by, the Hindu community or a section thereof, as a
9
place of public religious worship. The mere fact that members of the public
are allowed to worship at a place, will not make it a public temple. The
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 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. [See
: the decision of the Privy Council in Mundacheri Koman vs. Atchuthan -
ILR 58 Mad. 91, the decisions of the Madras High Court in Madras Hindu
Religious Endowments Board vs. Deivanai Ammal - 1953 (2) MLJ 688;
Bodendraswami Mutt vs. The President of the Board of Commissioners for
Hindu Religious Endowments - 1955 (1) MLJ 60, and The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment (Admn.) Department vs. T.A.T.
Srimath Gnaniar Madalayam - 2003 (1) MLJ 726].
9. In Goswami Shri Mahalaxmi Vahuji vs. Shah Ranchhoddas Kalidas
(Dead) & Ors. - AIR 1970 SC 2025 and T.D. Gopalan vs. The
Commissioner of Hindu Religions and Charitable Endowments, Madras -
AIR 1972 SC 1716, this Court held that the origin of the temple, the manner
10
in which the affairs are managed, the gifts received by it, the rights exercised
by devotees in regard to worship therein and the consciousness of the
devotees themselves as to the character of the temple, are the factors which
go to show whether a temple is a public temple or a private temple. It is also
well-settled that mere installation and consecration of idols in a place will
not make it a place of public religious worship. Where the evidence shows
that the disputed property retained the identity as a Math and where
Gurupoojas (functions celebrating/important days associated with the
founder or head of the math) are performed regularly, it will not lose the
characteristic of a Math and become a temple, merely because idols have
been installed and members of a section of Hindu community offer worship.
In fact, this fact is now statutorily recognized in the definition of Math in
section 6(13) of the Act which makes it clear that a Math includes any place
of religious worship which is appurtenant to the institution of a Math.
10. This Court in Radhakanta Deb vs. The Commissioner of Hindu
Religious Endowments, Orissa [AIR 1981 SC 798] on a conspectus of
earlier authorities, laid down the following tests to provide sufficient
guidelines to determine on the facts of each case, whether an endowment is
of a private or a public nature :
11
"Thus, on a conspectus of the authorities mentioned above, the following
tests may be laid down as providing sufficient guidelines to determine on
the facts of each case whether an endowment is of a private or of a public
nature :
(1) Where the origin of the endowment cannot be ascertained, the
question whether the user of the temple by member of the public is as
of right;
(2) The fact that the control and management vests either in a large body
of persons or in the members of the public and the founder does not
retain any control over the management. Allied to this may be a
circumstance where the evidence shows that there is provision for a
scheme to be framed by associating the members of the public at
large;
(3) Where, however, a document is available to prove the nature and
origin of the endowment and the recitals of the document show that
the control and management of the temple is retained with the
founder or his descendants, and that extensive properties are
dedicated for the purpose of the maintenance of the temple belonging
to the founder himself, this will be a conclusive proof to show that the
endowment was of a private nature;
(4) Where the evidence shows that the founder of the endowment did not
make any stipulation for offerings or contributions to be made by
members of the public to the temple, this would be an important
intrinsic circumstance to indicate the private nature of the
endowment."
(emphasis supplied)
11. We may also in this context refer to one of the earliest judgments of
the Madras High Court. In Thambu Chetti Subraya Chetti vs. A.T. Arundel -
ILR 6 (1883) Mad. 287. The question considered therein was whether a
building known as the Dharma Sivachari Mattam could be considered to be
a place of public worship, as idols were installed in the said Math premises,
12
so that exemption from payment of municipal tax could be availed. A
Division Bench of the Madras High Court held :
"The original signification of the term Math or Matha is a building or set
of buildings in which Hindu religious mendicants reside under a superior,
who is called a Mahant. This spiritual superior is regarded with veneration
by the members of the sect, and is installed with some ceremony, and not
infrequently receives an honorific title. Although a place of worship is not
a necessary part of a Math, such a place is, as may be expected, often
found in such institutions, and, though intended primarily for the use of
the inmates, the public may be admitted to it, and so this part of the
building may become a place of religious worship. A Hindu Math
somewhat resembles a Catholic Monastery. From the circumstance that a
portion of it is not infrequently devoted to worship, and that the public
may be admitted to it, the term Math has acquired a secondary
signification as a small temple.
Taking the whole of the facts mentioned in the judgment, we see reason to
think that the institution was a Math in the original rather than the
secondary sense of that term.............when the Mattam is in part of in
whole used for purposes other than those of public worship, it will be
liable to taxation."
(emphasis supplied)
12. Therefore, the fact that there are some idols installed in a Math and
members of the public offer worship to such idol will not make it a place of
public religious worship, that is, a temple, if the other ingredients of a math
exist or if it is established to be a premises belonging to a math and used by
the math for its purposes. If the property in its origin was a math property, it
cannot be treated as a temple merely because the math had installed idols
and permitted worship by the members of the community and the premises
is used for rendering charitable and religious services. The Division Bench
has proceeded on the erroneous impression that existence of an idol in a
13
math property, when worshipped by the members of the community, would
convert the math property into a temple.
13. The plaintiff (Parasamaya Kolerinatha Madam) specifically claims
that the suit property belonged to the plaintiff Mutt and produced several
documents, the genuineness of which was not under question. We may
examine the said evidence. Exhibit-P1 is the certified copy of the
preliminary decree in the scheme suit (Ponnaivasan Achari & Ors. v.
Nelliappa Achari - OS No.58 of 1922, dated 29.3.1924) with reference to
Parasamaya Kolerinatha Madam situated at Tirunelveli and its properties.
The said preliminary decree declares that Parasamaya Kolerinatha Madam
situated at Tirunelveli is a public religious and charitable foundation for the
benefit of five sections of Vishwakarma community of the Tamil districts of
Southern India as also Travancore, Cochin and Malabar, holding the
properties mentioned in the plaint schedule; that the office of Mathadhipathi
of the said Mutt was vacant; that it was necessary to frame the scheme for
the appointment of a Mathadhipathi and regulate succession to the office of
the Mathadhipathi and vest the Mutt and such property in such
Mathadhipathi. The suit property was one of the properties shown as
belonging to the math. After such preliminary decree, a draft scheme was
14
filed and a scheme was framed on 2.5.1925. Ex. P2 is the final decree dated
10.9.1927 in the said suit (OS No.58/1922) which confirms that a scheme
has been framed for the said Parasamaya Kolerinatha Madam, Tirunelveli on
2.5.1925; that the said scheme provided for appointment of Mathadhipathi
and regulating the succession to the office of Mathadhipathi; that as per the
directions of the court, the disciples of the plaintiff Mutt was convened on
5.9.1927 and Srimath Rajaratna Swami was unanimously elected as the
Mathadhipathi. The final decree declared that the said Rajaratna Swamigal
was the Mathadhipathi of the institution in whom, according to the scheme
settled in the preliminary decree, the properties described in the said final
decree vested. The first schedule thereto enumerates the properties owned by
the Math situated at Tirunelveli and third schedule describes the agricultural
lands owned by the Math. The fourth schedule describes the movables. The
fifth schedule to the said decree describes the two properties situated outside
Tirunelveli district - one property in Travancore area and the property
situated at Komaleeswararpet, Chennai described as "Srimath Parasamaya
Kolerinatha Swami Madam - Sri Meenakshiamman temple and its assets".
This document establishes beyond doubt that at a undisputed point of time,
the said suit property was the property belonging to the plaintiff Math,
vested in its Madhathipathi.
15
14. As against the said documents (Ex P1 and P2) which trace the title to
more than 55 years before filing of the suit, the defendants have not
produced any title deeds. The contention of the defendants that as neither
they nor the trustees preceding them, were parties to the scheme suit of
1922, the decree in the said scheme suit was not binding on them, is not
tenable. The defendants have produced documents to show that the suit
property and the temple therein are being managed by the members of the
community at Komaleeswararpet from around 1938 onwards. Obviously
therefore the question of impleading either defendants 1 and 2 or their
predecessors in 1924 or 1925 did not arise. In fact plaintiff Math does not
deny the fact that idol of Meenakshiamman is installed in the suit property
and that the day to day management of the suit property was entrusted to the
Viswakarma community members in Komaleeswararpet Chennai, as the
head quarters of the Math was situated at Tirunelveli. The entrustment of
management by the Math to the elders/members of the Viswakarma
Community under the guidance and supervision of the Math, would not
divest the title of the Math to the property.
15. We may next refer to the undisputed documents which establish that
the suit property where the idol of Meenakshiamman is installed is the
16
property of the plaintiff Math. The most important of the documents, which
would clinch the case in support of the plaintiff Math is Ex. P16 which is a
certified copy of the petition dated 7.10.1978 under section 64(1) of the Act
(OA No.102/1978) filed by defendants 1 and 2 and other managing
committee members of Meenakshiamman Temple before the Deputy
Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
(Administration), Madras, for framing a scheme for appointment of Trustees
and management of the temple. The subject-matter of the petition is
described as "In the matter of Sri Meenakshiamman temple situated in
Srimad Parasamaya Kolarinatha Swamigal Mutt in 16, Chandra Banu
Street, Komaleeswaranpettai, Madras". In para 2 of the said petition,
defendants 1 and 2 and other petitioners therein averred: "There is a temple
dedicated to Sri Meenakshiamman in Chandrabanu Street,
Komaleeswaranpet, Madras-2. The institution in question is located in a
Mutt belonging to Srimath Parasamaya Kolarinathaswami. The said Swami
was the head of the members of the Viswakarma Community residing in
Komaleeswaranpet, from time immemorial." Having made such admission,
they however claimed that "though the temple has been located in the Mutt,
the Mutt is no longer in existence and that the institution in question has
been considered as the property of the members of the Viswakarma
17
Community.......... the institution in question has always been under the
management of the members of the said community ever since its
inception." The said petition was dismissed.
16. Several other documents produced by plaintiff Math issued by the
defendants and their predecessors also establish that the suit property was
always considered to be the property of the Math. They are :
(i) Ex.P2 dated 16.10.1963 is a pamphlet issued by R.Kanakasabhapathy
Achari on behalf of Srimath Parasamaya Kolerinatha Swami Madam,
Komaleeswararpet Chennai, inviting devotees to participate in the worship
of Meenakshiammam during Navarathri celebrations.
(ii) Ex. P6 is the Navrathri Mahotsava invitation/pamphlet issued by R.
Kanagasabapathy Achari and others on 16.10.1963 describing the temple as
"Srimath Parasamaya Kolerinatha Swamigal Madam - Vishwa Karma
Samooha Aadheenam - Sri Meenakshi temple".
(iii) Ex. P7 is an invitation pamphlet dated 2.5.1970 in connection with
Guru pooja offered to Nellai Parasamaya Kolerinatha Guru Swami and in
that connection aradhana to Meenakshiammam and poor feeding at the suit
property.
(iv) Ex.P8 is a receipt dated 10.5.1972 issued by first defendant for a sum
of Rs.3 towards Gurupooja and the receipt is issued in the name of "Sri
Parasamaya Kolerinatha Math -- Sri Meenakshiamman Temple".
18
(v) Ex. P9 is a programme schedule dated 21.9.1981 issued by the first
defendant in regard to the celebration of Navarathri festival at "Srimath
Parasamaya Kolerinatha Swami Madam - Sri Meenakshiamman Navarathri
celebrations."
(vi) Ex. P13 is a pamphlet relating to a musical festival to be held between
1.6.1960 to 5.6.1960 in connection with the Kumbabhishekham at "Chennai
Komaleeswararpet, Chandrabanu Street, Nellai Srimath Parasamaya
Kolerinatha Math -- Sri Meenakshi Sannidhi", issued by the Math Temple
Festival Committee on the directions of Nellai Jagatguru Shrimath
Parasamaya Kolerinathar Adeenam, 37th Jagatguru Swami Sivananda
Muneeswara.
(vii) Ex. P14 is an invitation pamphlet dated 25.5.1960 issued by the
Managing Committee of "Nellai Jagatguru Srimath Parasamaya Kolerinathar
Adeenam" regarding Sri Meenakshiamman Idol Procession in
Komaleeswararpet in the presence of Nellai Jagatguru Parasamaya
Kolerinathar 37th Jagatguru Swami Sivananda Muneeswarar.
(viii) Ex. P15 is a pamphlet dated 6.7.1960 issued by the person-in-charge
Parasamaya Kolerinatha Madam, No.11, Chandrabanu Street,
Komaleeswaranpet, Chennai, in connection with the celebration of the
coronation of the 37th Peetadhipathi Jagatguru Parasamaya Kolerinathar.
(ix) Ex.P17 is the pamphlet dated 21.3.1960 issued by the management of
Parasamaya Kolerinatha Madam mutt, Kamaleeswaranpettai in connection
19
with a festival in regard to Godess Meenakshiamman installed two centuries
earlier by 32nd Jagatguru Srinath Swami Anavaradacharya.
(x) Ex. P18 dated 18.7.1960 is the invitation to the disciples and followers
of Shrimath Parasamaya Kolerinatha Swami to have darshan of the Swami at
Parasamaya Kelarinatha Swami Math, No.11, Chandrabanu Street,
Komaleeswararpet, Chennai.
It is not necessary to refer to other documents exhibited by plaintiff math,
most of which relate to a period subsequent to the filing of the suit.
17. The defendants marked Ex D1 to D 42. Most of the documents related
to the festivals conducted in connection with the Meenakshiamman temple
or regarding the handing over of management of the temple from one
managing committee to another managing committee. Many relate to the
period subsequent to the suit and not relevant. But several of them relate to
the undisputed period before the suit and clearly prove the case of the
plaintiff Math. We may refer to some of defendants' exhibits:
(i) Ex. D1 dated 7.4.1938 is the pamphlet issued by the person-in-charge
of the suit property - Adhimoola Achari in regard to appointment of
Committee for managing "Sri Meenakshi Temple situated in Chennai
Komaleeswaranpettai Srimath Parasamaya Kolerinatha Swami Math".
20
(ii) Ex. D8 is a pamphlet dated 16.10.1941 by Adhimoola Achari,
`Dharmakartha' of the temple in regard to a festival at Sri Meenakshi
Temple at Sri Parasamaya Kolerinatha Madam, Kamaleeswaranpet,
Chennai.
(iii) Ex. D16 is a pamphlet about the appointment of Managing Committee
of Sri Meenakshiamman temple at Srimath Parasamaya Kolerinatha Swami
Madam for the term 17.6.1945 to 5.3.1950.
(iv) Ex. D24 is the Invitation Pamphlet dated 10.5.1972 in connection with
Guru Pooja of the founder of the plaintiff Math at the suit property.
(v) Ex. D32 is a pamphlet dated 5.10.1966 issued by Kanagasabapathy
Achari in regard to Navrathri festival in Meenakshi Temple at Srimath
Parasamaya Kolerinatha Madam.
18. These documents irrefutably establish that the temple was a part of the
Math; that the Math appointed a local elder of Viswakarma Community at
Komaleeswaranpet to manage the suit property and the place of worship
therein, that the local elder handed over management to successive elected
managing committees (from the Viswakarma community at
Komaleeswaranpet, Chennai) to be in day to day management; that the
defendants and their predecessors who were the members of the Managing
Committee of the temple, had always accepted and described the place of
worship as being a part of Parasamaya Kolerinatha Guruswamigal Madam,
21
that is plaintiff-Mutt. When some of the pamphlets exhibited by defendants
describe the place of worship in the Math property as Meenakshiamman
`koil', the word was not used as referring to a `temple' as defined in the Act,
but as a place of worship always as part of and belonging to the plaintiff
math.
19. The oral evidence the second defendant - T.R.Nataraj Achary (DW1)
also establishes that Meenakshiamman Koil was part of plaintiff Math. In
the examination-in-chief, he states that the suit property is Meenakshiamman
temple which has been administered by a group of trustees elected/appointed
by the Viswakarma community in Komaleeswararpet and the temple belongs
to the Viswakarma community of Komaleeswararpet. However he also
stated that Srimat Parasamaya Kolerinatha Swamigul, who lived several
centuries ago in Tirunelveli, was the Guru of Viswakarma community and
there is a statue of the said Swami in the temple; that a sect of Viswakarma
community regularly conducts Guru Pooja in honour of the founder of the
Math in the premises. He extract below some of his answers which establish
the case of the plaintiff Math:
"Q. Did the present Head of Mutt or the previous Head of Mutt stay in the
Meenakshi temple ?
22
A. The present Head of the Mutt stayed only for one and a half hour and
the previous Head of the Mutt might have come and stayed."
"Q: This notice (Ex.D.24 and Ex.P.7) was issued by 64 Thalaikettu
Viswakarma Community people, is it so?
A: Yes. This pooja is being conducted by them.
Q: See Ex. D.24 and Ex.P.7, there is a song in the beginning of the matter.
A: Yes.
Q: The Guru referred to in both the notification in the song is Nellai
Parasamaya Kolarinatha Swamigal, is it not?
A: Yes.
Q: 64 Thalaikattu Viswakarma Community are residing in Madras, is it
so?
A: Yes. They are living in Madras.
Q: 64 Thalaikattu Viswakarma Community are celebrating (Guru) poojas
in the suit property, is it not?
A: Yes.
Q: That Guru Pooja is in respect of Nellai Parasamaya Kolarinatha
Swamigal?
A: Yes.
Q: Ex.P.7 was issued after you claimed to have been a trustee of the suit
property?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you know that the present suit has been filed by Nellai Parasamaya
Kolarinatha Swamigal?
A: Yes. I am aware.
Q: There is a stone image of Nellai Parasamaya Kolarinatha in the suit
property?
A: Yes.
23
Q: This image in the suit property is that of the man you are referring to?
A: Yes.
Q: The chappals (`Padukas') owned by him are in the suit property?
A: Yes.
Q: Ex.P.9 was a notice issued by you for Navarathiri Festival in the suit
property in 1981. Your name is also there?
A: Yes. My name is also there.
Q: In this document the suit property is described as Parasamaya
Kolarinatha Swamigal Madam?
A: Yes.
Q: So from 1938 to 1981 suit property is described as Parasamaya
Kolarinatha Madam?
A: Yes. It is from the beginning known as Parasamaya Kolarinatha
Swamigal Madam.
Q: This document Ex.D.30 (Page No.9) is also filed by you?
A: Yes.
Q: There also (Page 8 of Ex.D.30) it is referred that Kolarinatha Swamigal
installed the Meenakshi Amman Idol.
A: Yes."
20. The learned Single Judge has referred to oral and documentary
evidence in detail and recorded a categorical finding that the property
belonged to the plaintiff Mutt and that the claim of the defendants that the
plaintiff Math had nothing to do with the suit property was false and
untenable. On the other hand, the Division Bench failed to consider the
24
significance of these relevant documents. It inferred that the suit property
ceased to be a Math property and became a `temple' as defined in section
6(20) of the Act, because the Meenakshiamman idol was installed in the
Math property and the members of the community were offering worship
and festivals were conducted and celebrated by the Managing Committee
and Municipal taxes were being paid by the Managing Committee. But it
failed to notice that mere existence of idols in Math premises or worship
thereof by the public would not convert a property belonging to the Math
into a temple. It failed to notice that installation of the idol
Meenakshiamman and installation of the statue of Sri Swami Parasamaya
Kolerinatha Guru and conducting the festivals and Gurupoojas were part of
Math's activities being held and conducted in the name of the plaintiff Mutt
or its Mathadhipathi.
21. The oral and documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff and
defendants clearly and categorically establish the following factual positions
factual positions :
(i) The suit property belonged to the plaintiff Math;
(ii) The Meenakshiamman idol was installed by the 32nd
Mathadhipathi of the Math in suit property, in the eighteenth
25
century. There is nothing to show that installation was with the
object of dedicating the premises as a place of public religious
worship. On the other hand the suit property was and always been
a property belonging to the plaintiff Math, where the members of
Vishwakarma community were permitted to offer worship to the
idol of Meenakshiamman.
(iii) The suit property is used regularly to celebrate Guru pooja in
honour of the founder of the Math and the Mathadhipathis. The
premises was used by the Mathadhipathi of the plaintiff Math and
his disciples and followers for their stay at Chennai.
(iv) The head of plaintiff Math had directed the Viswakarma
community in Komaleeswararpettai, Chennai to manage the day to
day affairs of the suit property including provision for worship of
idols in the property by constituting a Managing Committee. The
Managing Committee was managing the Math property and the
temple therein, recognizing and accepting that they were part of
plaintiff Math.
(v) In the year 1978, the defendants and others in management
attempted unsuccessfully to assert that the premises is exclusively
a temple belonging to the Viswakarma community members at
Komaleeswararpet and not the plaintiff Math.
In view of the above findings, all the three questions raised are answered in
favour of the appellant Math.
26
22. As the management through a local committee has been in vogue for
several decades, it would be appropriate if the same system is continued for
the efficient management of the suit property and the place of worship. The
Managing Committee should consist of a Chairman nominated by the
Mathadhipathi of plaintiff Math and six members (of whom three shall be
nominated by plaintiff Math and the remaining three shall be elected by the
Viswakarma community at Komaleeswararpet, Chennai). The said
Managing Committee will be accountable to the plaintiff Math and act under
its directions.
23. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree
of the division bench of the High Court is set aside and the judgment and
decree of the learned Single Judge decreeing the suit is restored as under:
(i) The suit property with the installed idols and other assets 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.
(ii) Neither the Viswakarma community of Komaleeswararpet or the
Committees of Management of the `Meenakshiamman Temple'
27
own the suit property or the place of worship therein. They were
merely acting as the representatives of the plaintiff Math.
(iii) The defendants and their agents and representatives shall deliver
the entire suit property with the place of worship with the installed
idols and all movables, to the plaintiff Math forthwith.
(iv) Parties to bear their respective costs.
..............................J.
(R V Raveendran)
New Delhi; ...............................J.
September 22, 2011. (H L Gokhale)
