BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 30- 06- 2011 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN S.A.No.1723 of 1997 and C.M.P.No.16993 of 1997 1.Chinnusamy Gounder, 2.S.Kolandan ...Appellants/Plaintiffs Versus 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by Collector, Salem. 2. The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. ( Administration) Department, Madras – 34. ... Respondents/Defendants Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, as against the judgment and decree dated 26.08.1997, passed in A.S.No.126 of 1995, by the First Additional District Judge-cum Chief Judicial Magistrate,Salem, in confirming the judgment and decree dated 22.02.1994, passed in O.S.No.232 of 1991 by the Subordinate Judge, Namakkal. For Appellants : Mr.D.Sivakumaran For Respondents : Mr.R.Muthanan Government Advocate JUDGMENT The unsuccessful plaintiffs are the appellants herein. 2. The appellants/plaintiffs filed the suit in a representative capacity, seeking for declaration that the Temple viz., Arulmigu Sri Annamarswamy, situate at Singalanathapuram Village, Rasipuram Taluk, Salem District, belonging to Villaiyankulam Konguvellalar Community, which is a religious denominational temple, entitled to manage and administer the said Temple and for other religious purpose. 3. The case of the appellants/plaintiffs was that Velayankullam Kongu Vellars is one of the subsects of Konguvellars Community. Each sect has its own principal Deity or Tutelary God and Velayankullam https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Kongu Vellarlars are worshippers of Arulmigu Annamarswamy Temple at Singalanathapuram. It is further submitted that the said Temple was founded by that particular community for its exclusive worship and that community members are managing and administering the affairs of the Temple for the past several years and no one outside the said Community was in management or administration of the Temple. 4. It is further stated that Velayankullam Kongu Vellarlars Community is a religious denomination and as such, it is entitled to manage its own Temple, as per the right guaranteed under Article 26 of the Constitution of India and in violation of the fundamental rights of the plaintiffs community, the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment ( for short “ H.R.& C.E.”) Department has appointed a non-hereditary trustee to manage the affairs of the Temple and therefore, the said community people filed an application in O.A.No.171of 1982, before the Deputy Commissioner of H.R.& C.E., Coimbatore, for framing a scheme under Section 64 (1) of H.R. & C. E. Act ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') stating that the Temple is a denominational Temple and the said application was dismissed. Thereafter, the appellants/plaintiffs filed an Appeal, being A.P.No.33 of 1989, to the Commissioner of H.R.& C.E., Coimbatore and that was also dismissed on 25.10.1990. Therefore, the appellants/plaintiffs have filed the suit, after the issuance of statutory notice, seeking for the relief stated above. 5. The respondents/defendants contested the suit stating that Velayankullam Kongu Vellarlar, is not a denominational community and the Temple was not founded by them. The said Temple was worshipped by all sects of people and it is not the exclusive Temple meant for that particular community alone. Further, in the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner, the appellants/plaintiffs failed to prove the denominational character of the Temple and it was found by the Authorities that the members from other cast and community have also contributed for the management of the Temple. Moreover, they have also collected donations from other community members and hence, the appellants/plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief prayed for. 6. Both the Courts have held that the appellant/plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of declaration that the Temple is a denominational Temple, belonging to Velayankullam Kongu Vellarlar community. Feeling aggrieved by the same, this Second Appeal is filed. 7. The following Substantial Question of Law was framed by this Court at the time of admission of the Second Appeal:- Have not the Courts below committed an error of law in not granting the declaratory relief to the Temple, forming the subject matter of the suit, as a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ denominational Temple? 8. It is submitted by Mr.D.Sivakumaran, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the suit was filed under Section 107 of the H.R.&C.E. Act, for declaration that the Temple is a denominational temple, belonging to Velayankullam Kongu Vellarlar Community and without properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, both the Courts below have erroneously held that the appellants/plaintiffs have not proved the denominational character of the Temple and therefore, judgments and decrees of the Lower Appellate Court are liable to be set aside. 9. Per contra, Mr.R.Muthanan, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that both the Trial Court as well as the Lower Appellate Court have discussed the oral and documentary evidence in a detailed manner and held that the appellants/plaintiffs have not proved the denominational character of the Temple, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, there is no need to interfere with the concurrent findings of the fact and prayed for dismissal of this appeal. 10. The learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the following judgments reported in (2007) 3 L.W. 523 in the case of ( The Commissioner H.R. & C.E. Admn. Dept., Madras Vs. T.M.Pattai Gounder and others) A.I.R 1977 Madras 96 in the case of ( The State of Tamil Nadu and another Vs. P.S.R.Senbagamurthy Nadar and others) 2003 I M.L.J. 414 in the case of ( The Commissioner, H. R. and C. E. Board, Madras and another Vs. T.S.Palanichamy and others); (2006) 2 C.T.C. 49 in the case of ( N.Sivasubramanian Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep by its Secretary, H.R.& C.E. Dept. Fort St. George, Chennai and others) and (2003) M.H.C. 1216 in the case of ( Chellam Pillai and other Vs. Palavesam Pillai and others) in support of his contention. 11. The learned counsel for the respondents relied upon a judgment of this Court reported in A.I.R. 1987 Madras 187 in the case of ( The Assistant Commissioner, H.R.& C.E. Salem and others Vs. Nattamai K.S.Ellappa Mudaliar and others) in support of his contention and submitted that the entire law has been discussed in the said judgment elaborately, and as per the said judgment, the appellants are not entitled to the relief prayed for. 12. Heard both sides. 13. According to me, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants, except the judgment reported in A.I.R. 1997 Madras 96 (supra) cannot be applied to the facts of the present case on hand. In those judgments, the High Court has dealt with the issue whether the Temple is a private or public temple. Insofar as this case is concerned, the appellants/plaintiffs claimed that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Temple is a denominational Temple and therefore, the law laid down in those judgments, cannot be applied to the facts of this case. 14. In the judgment reported in A.I.R.1997 Madras 96 (supra) having regard to the fact established in that case, this Court has held that the suit Temple is a denominational Temple, belonging to Sivakasi Hindu Nadars and therefore, that judgment also will not support the plaintiffs' case. 15. In the judgment reported in A.I.R. 1987 Madras 187 ( supra) the Hon'ble Judge M.Srinivasan, (as he then was) dealt with the law in this respect in a detailed manner and after the quoting the famous Shirur Mutt case reported in A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 282 and also the judgment reported in A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 20 in the case of ( S.P.Mittal Vs. Union of India) and two other judgments, reported in (1972) T.L.N.J. 404 in the case of (K.V.Vaidyanatha Sastgrigal Vs. K.S.Ramaswami Iyer) (1972) T.L.N.J. 443 in the case of (Kuppuswami Chetty Vs. Commissioner of H.R.& C.E.) held as follows :- “ As seen from the decision of the Supreme Court, the words 'religious denomination' must take their colour from the word ' Religion'. It is, therefore, clear that the common faith of the community should be based on religion. It is essential that they should have common religious tenets. The basic cord which connects them should be religion and not anything else. '' 16. Further, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in A.I.R. 1983 S.C.20 ( supra) the appellants/plaintiffs have to satisfy three conditions to come within the expression as “religious denomination” and they are as hereunder:- ''i) It must be a collection of individuals, who have a system of beliefs or doctrines, which they regards as conducive to their spiritual well- being, that is, a common faith ii) Common Organization; and iii) Designation by a distinctive name.'' 17. In the present case, though it has been stated in the plaint that the Temple was founded by the Villaiyankulam Konguvellalar Community, no evidence was let in to prove the same and no evidence was let in to prove that the Temple was administered by said Community. In the judgment reported in A.I.R. 1987 Madras 187 ( supra) it has been held that for the purpose of invoking Article 26 of the Constitution of India, the plaintiffs have got to prove two facts viz., they establish and maintain the Temple. While discussing the above two conditions, the Learned Judge has held as follows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ “ In fact, learned counsel for the respondents himself referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Azeez Basha Vs. Union of India, A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 662, where the Supreme Court held that the word “ establish and maintain” in Article 26 (a) of the Constitution must be read conjunctively and it is only those institutions which is a religious denomination establishes which it can claim to maintain and that the right under Cl.(a) of Article 26 which only arise where the institution is established by a religious denomination. In view of the same the burden is on the plaintiffs to prove that the Temple in question was established by the community of Senguntha Mudaliars of Tharamangatam and it is not sufficient, if it is proved that the Temple was being maintained by the Community.'' 18. As held in that case, in the present case also, though evidence was let in to prove that the Temple was managed and administered by the Villaiyankulam Konguvellalar Community, no proof was adduced, to prove the fact that it was established by the said community. Further, to claim the statutory “religious denomination” the sect has a system of beliefs or doctrines, which they regards as conducive to their spiritual well-being, i.e., a common faith, common organization and designation by a distinctive name. 19. The Trial Court has discussed the evidence elaborately and held that the appellants/plaintiffs have not proved the fact that only the community people, belonging to Villaiyankulam Konguvellalars, alone establish and maintained the Temple. On the other hand, Exs.3 and A.9, would prove that the Temple was collecting donations from other community members also. Further, the Trial Court relied upon the judgment reported in 1993 I M.L.J. 499 in the case of (The Assistant Commissioner, H.R.& C.E. (Administrative) Tirunelveli Vs. Peria Nadar and others) and held that the appellants/plaintiffs have not adduced any evidence to prove that Villaiyankulam Konguvellalar Community is having any specific distinct religious tenets, which is exclusively followed by that Community and not by others and in the absence of any such evidence, they cannot claim the character of denomination. This was also rightly appreciated by the Lower Appellate Court and the Lower Appellate Court held that no evidence was let in to prove that Villaiyankulam Konguvellalar Community is a denomination by itself and they have not established the Temple or maintained the same. 20. Therefore, having regard to the concurrent findings of the Courts below, which was based on proper appreciation of facts and law and also taking into consideration of the judgment of this Court reported in A.I.R. 1987 Madras 187 ( supra), I am of the opinion that the plaintiffs have not proved that the Villaiyankulam https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Konguvellalar Community is a denominational in character and the Temple was established by them and therefore, they are not entitled to the declaration, sought for. Hence, the substantial question of law is answered against the appellants and the Second Appeal is dismissed, Judgment and decree of the Trial Court is restored and that of the Lower Appellate Court are confirmed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar //true copy// Sub Asst.Registrar sd To 1. First Additional District Judge, Salem. 2.The Subordinate Judge, Namakkal. 1 cc to Mr.D.Shivakumaran, Advocate, Sr.No.38478 1 cc to Additional Government Pleader, Sr.No.38358 S.A.No.1723 of 1997 UG {CO} TP/5.8.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/