TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court affirms ownership decision on temple site renovation rights emphasizing deity presence. Plaintiffs fail as trustees.</h1> <h3>V. Raghavachari And Ors. Versus Narayana Iyengar</h3> V. Raghavachari And Ors. Versus Narayana Iyengar - AIR 1973 Mad 323, (1973) 1 MLJ 252 Issues:1. Ownership of the old temple site and the right to renovate.2. Trustee status of the plaintiffs.3. Validity of the injunction against the defendant.4. Applicability of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act.Ownership of the Old Temple Site and Right to Renovate:The case involved a dispute over the ownership of the old temple site and the right to renovate it. The plaintiffs, claiming to be trustees of Sri Kariamanicka Perumal temple, sought an injunction to stop the defendant from renovating the old temple. The lower court decreed in favor of the defendant, stating that since the main deity of the old temple had not been found, the villagers had the right to renovate the old temple. Additionally, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish themselves as trustees. The High Court upheld the lower court's decision, emphasizing that the existence of the main deity at the old site justified the renovation attempts by the villagers.Trustee Status of the Plaintiffs:The plaintiffs contended that they were the trustees of the temple and sought to prevent the defendant from renovating the old temple site. However, the lower court found that the plaintiffs did not prove their trustee status. The High Court agreed with this finding, stating that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated their authority as trustees of Sri Kariamanicka Perumal temple.Validity of the Injunction Against the Defendant:The plaintiffs sought an injunction to restrain the defendant from renovating the old temple site. The lower court initially granted the injunction, but it was reversed on appeal. The High Court concurred with the appellate court, noting that the delay in seeking the injunction and the lack of trustee status on the part of the plaintiffs made it inappropriate to grant the injunction.Applicability of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act:One of the defenses raised was the applicability of Sec. 67 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, which deals with the cessation of religious institutions. The lower court held that the Act did not bar the suit, and this contention was not pursued further. The High Court agreed that the Act did not prevent the dispute over the old temple site from being resolved through legal proceedings, as the question of the deity's existence at the old site needed judicial determination.In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's decision in favor of the defendant. The judgment highlighted the importance of the main deity's presence at the old temple site as a justification for renovation attempts by the villagers. The court also emphasized the lack of trustee status on the part of the plaintiffs and the inappropriateness of granting an injunction due to the delay in seeking legal action. Additionally, the court clarified that the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act did not preclude the resolution of the dispute through the legal process.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
