Case: Commissioner For Hindu Religious &amp; Charitableendowments, My Vs. Ratnavarma Heggade (Deceased) By His L.Rs

This appeal by special leave arises out of the judgment of the High Court of Mysore dated August 30, 1968, upholding the order of District Judge, South Kanara, dated November 9, 1956. By that order the District Judge set aside the decision of the Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras, hereinafter referred to as the Board, that the institution known as Sri Manjunatha temple at Dharamasthal, Puttur taluk, South Kanara district was a temple as defined in clause (12) of Section 9 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926, (Madras Act II of 1927), hereinafter referred to as the Act. The Commissioner under the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act feels aggrieved because the impugned judgment has the effect of taking the temple out of the control provided by the Act. The respondent in this appeal was the "supplemental" petitioner before the District Judge and was brought on record on the death of Manjayya Heggade who was the original petitioner in the petition under(2) of Section 84 of the Act.2. The controversy relates to the Manjunatha temple, in Dharmasthal, which is now the name of a village in Belthangady taluk of South Kanara district of Tamil Nadu. The original name of the village was Mallarmadi. The locality in which the temple is situated was called Kukya Kudume, but it came to be known as Dharamasthal after the visit of Sri Vadiraja Swamiar of Sode Mutt, Udipi, in the sixteenth century, to which reference will be made in a while.3. It is not in dispute that, even according to the Heggade, Dharamasthal has a number of institutions including the following main institutionsNelleyadi Beedu,2. Chandranatha Basthi,3. Manjunatha temple,4. Ammanvaru temple, and5.institutions have been shown in exhibit A 59 which is said to be a rough sketch of the Dharmasthal. It is also not in dispute before us that "Daivas" were first established in Nelleyadi Beedu, by an ancestor of Heggade who was a Jain, and were worshipped there. Heggade began to give charity to persons of all religions, and the institution becameand travellers began to visit it in large numbers. It is the common case of the parties that Sri Vadiraja Swamiar of Sode Mutt, Udipi, who was a sanyasi, happened to pass that way and was invited by Heggade to stay there. The Swamiar however refused to accept food there on the ground that it was "Bhuta Kshetra". Heggade felt very sorry as the great sanyasi was starving in his house. It is said that Heggade thereupon arranged to instal the idol of Sri Manjunatha in the "garbagriha". The Swamiar was appeased and performed the first "pooja" in that temple, which thereafter came to be known as Dharmasthal. This is said to have happened in the sixteenth century and is, at any rate, said to be the origin of the Manjunatha temple in the Dharmasthal campus.4. The Board started proceedings under Section 84(1) of the Act to decide whether Sri Manjunatha temple was a temple as defined in clause (2) of Section 9 of the Act. Heggade urged before the Board, inter alia, that all the institutions in Dharmasthal formed a single unit representing a private institution, that it had been founded by his ancestors on their own private land, that there was no dedication to the Hindus and they could not claim any right of worship, that Dharmasthal was Jain in character, that it was a charitable but not a religious institution, that his status was not akin to that of a mere trustee and that "Heggadeship" was intimately and inseparably connected with the Dharmasthal institution and Manjunatha temple.5. The Board made an enquiry and reached the conclusion that Manjunatha temple was a separate entity and was the most important institution and that it was not the private property of the Heggade. It also held that it was not a Jain institution, but was a Hindu temple, and that it was a religious and not merely a charitable institution for its charity was connected with the temple. The Board also held that the public had used the temple freely ever since its foundation. It accordingly decided the Manjunatha was a temple as defined in the Act even though its trusteeship vested in Heggade who were Jains.6. As has been stated, an application was made by Manjayya Hedge to the District Judge, under(2) of Section 84 of the Act for setting aside the Boards decision. It was specifically pleaded in that application that the entire institution known as Dharmasthal was a "composite" institution and that his ancestors always claimed that the Manjunatha Devaru, its properties and deities belonged to them personally and that its patta stood in their names from time immemorial. On that basis, it was pleaded further that as the properties were outside the scope of the enquiry under Section 84 of the Act, the Act "did not apply and the Board had no jurisdiction to hold an enquiry under Section 84". Awas filed on behalf of the Board in which it was pleaded that Manjunatha temple of Dharmasthal was "an independent entity being a separate temple, owning its own its own property and having separate income". It was pleaded further that there were properties in the name of the deity of the Manjunatha in Mysore State and other places. The District Judge did not frame any issue but formulated some points for determination including the points whether Manjunatha Devaru was only a part of the institution known as Dharmasthal, and not a separate institution in itself, and whether the provisions of the Act did not apply to it ? He recorded the evidence and held that Manjunatha temple was one of the 3 or 4 shrines maintained from the income of the institution known as Dharmasthal, Heggade was a component part of the institution, the temple stood on the private land of Heggade, the Manjunatha shrine was a Hindu institution but it was so mixed up and connected with other Jain institutions that it was practically impossible to separate it, and that Dharmasthal was a happy blending of charity and religion. The District Judge held further that the Manjunatha shrine was the private temple of the Heggade, it had not been dedicated to the Hindu public, and it was not used by the public as of right. The District Judge did not decide whether the shrine of Ammanvaru and other deities was a Jain institution. He accordingly held that though the Manjunatha shrine may be a Hindu shrine, it was private property of the Heggade and the provisions of the Act were not applicable to it. The District Judge accordingly set aside the order of the Board dated March 9, 1949.7. The Commissioner filed an appeal to the High Court against that judgment of the District Judge dated November 9, 1956. One of the main questions presented for determination before the High Court was whether "all the institutions" of Dharmasthal formed a single composite institution. It was not in dispute before the High Court that, apart from the question of Manjunatha temple being an adjunct to the composite Dharmasthal institution, the temple was not an institution at all. Even the Heggade did not deny the existence of Manjunatha temple as an institution and took the specific plea in his affidavit dated July 22, 1949 that the Manjunatha deity "is a private institution belonging to the Heggade". The High Court examined the "crucial question" whether Manjunatha was a temple within the definition of the Act and whether it was a "religious endowment" under Section 9(11). It held that the Manjunatha temple was an adjunct to the composite institution of Dharmasthal and according to the customs and usages of the institution that temple could not be separated from the rest of the institution, that Dharmasthal was both a religious and charitable institution, that Manjunatha was a deity worshipped both by the Hindus and the Jains in accordance with their respective faiths and that it was neither an exclusively Hindu deity nor an exclusively Jain deity. The High Court referred to the pleadings and the evidence and held that the institution was founded by a Jain, its administration remained exclusively Jain since its inception, and that as Jains also worshipped along with Hindus, it could not be inferred that there was an implied dedication to the Hindus exclusively. The High Court thus held that the temple was not a temple as defined in the Act, and it was therefore not necessary to examine the question whether it was a private temple of the Heggade. In the result, the High Court took the view that the Act did not apply to the institution and the Board had no jurisdiction over it. It therefore dismissed the appeal with costs.8. The commissioner has obtained special leave, and this is how the appeal has come up here for consideration.

Reasoning:
It will be sufficient to say that what Section 9(12) of the Act requires by way of definition of a temple is that for purposes of the Act a temple should be dedicated for public religious worship, as of right, and it would not detract from its character as such if Jains also worship there. The argument of Mr. Chowdhary is, however, futile because, as has been mentioned, the provisions of the Act will not be attracted to the Manjunatha temple in the absence of any evidence to prove the existence of an endowment forfor the argument has been placed on B. K. Mukherjea on the Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts, third edition, page 27, which makes a mention of the rituals to be observed when a donor wants to consecrate a temple and establish a deity in it. It may be that, in a given case, it may be difficult to prove the original dedication because of the lapse of considerable time but, in the present case it would not be possible to conclude that there was any such dedication because there is nothing to show how Vadiraja Swamiar, who installed the lingam in Manjunatha temple, could be said to be a donor when the property did not belong to him.It therefore appears that the High Court was justified in taking the view that Manjunatha temple is part and parcel of the composite institution known as Dharmasthal and is so inseparably connected with it that it is its integral part. It cannot therefore be held that the Manjunatha temple is an "endowment" within the meaning of clause (11) of Section 9 of the Act for it has not been proved that any property belongs to it, or has been given or endowed for its support or for the performance of any service or charity connected therewith, or that it has any such premises of its own as could be said to form its own endowment.21. It would follow from what has been said above that even if the Manjunatha temple is assumed to be a place used, as of right, for public religious worship by Hindus, it could come under the purview of the Act only if it could be established that it was a religious endowment within the meaning of Section 2, but this has not been proved to be so. On the other hand it appears that the present institution of Dharmasthal was originally a Jain religious and charitable institution to which property was endowed by the ancestors of the present Heggade who was himself a Jain. It was that endowment which spread and gained more and more importance over the years because of the offerings made largely by Hindu and Jain devotees and worshipers. But it has not been established that there is any endowment which could be said to belong exclusively to Manjunatha temple. Even if any such endowment was made by someone in the name of Manjunatha temple (as stated by K. C. Nambayar RW 3), it was taken to be an endowment for the entire institution known as Dharmasthal and was treated as such. The Manjunatha temple cannot therefore be said to be a Hindu religious endowment within the meaning of Section 2. The provisions of the Act are not applicable to it, and the Board clearly erred in holding otherwise.