1961 (12) TMI 116 - SC - Indian Laws

Court rules institution not a temple under Hindu Religious Endowments Act. High Court judgment overturned.

The Poohari Fakir Sadavarthy of Bondilipuram Versus The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments

The Supreme Court concluded that the temple in question did not meet the definition of a 'temple' under the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926, ... - Issues Involved:1. Definition of 'temple' under the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926.2. Nature of the grants and their purpose.3. Historical and documentary evidence regarding the institution and temple.4. Public versus private nature of the temple.5. Reliability of witness testimonies.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Definition of 'temple' under the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926:The core issue was whether the institution in question qualified as a 'temple' under Clause (12) of Section 9 of the Act, which defines a temple as a place '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 any section thereof, as a place of religious worship.' The judgment concluded that the institution did not meet these criteria, as it was not used as of right by the Hindu community.2. Nature of the grants and their purpose:The judgment examined various historical documents dating from 1698 to 1803 A.D., which indicated that the grants were made primarily for the maintenance of the head of the institution and for distributing charities to fakirs and pilgrims. Notably, none of the grants explicitly mentioned the temple or its expenses, suggesting that the temple was an adjunct to the institution and not the primary beneficiary of the grants.3. Historical and documentary evidence regarding the institution and temple:The court analyzed multiple documents, including sanads and inam registers, which consistently indicated that the grants were for the Sadavarti institution and its head, not specifically for the temple. For instance, Exhibit P-1 from 1698 A.D. confirmed the grant for the Poohari Fakir Sadabarty's maintenance. The court found no independent grants to the temple, reinforcing the view that the temple was a private adjunct to the institution.4. Public versus private nature of the temple:The judgment scrutinized the High Court's reliance on certain features (e.g., structure, daily worship, public festivals) to classify the temple as public. However, the Supreme Court found these features insufficient to establish the temple as a public place of worship. The court emphasized that the temple's construction and maintenance were consistent with it being a private place of worship for the head of the institution and his disciples.5. Reliability of witness testimonies:The appellants presented five witnesses, whose testimonies supported the claim that the temple was private. The court found the High Court's rejection of these testimonies to be based on inadequate reasons. For example, the testimony of P.W. 2, Kameswara Rao, was dismissed by the High Court as biased, but the Supreme Court found his personal experiences and observations credible. Conversely, the respondent's sole witness, an Inspector of the Hindu Religious Endowments Board, was deemed unreliable due to inconsistencies and lack of firsthand knowledge.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the temple in question did not meet the definition of a 'temple' under the Act, as it was not used as of right by the Hindu community. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the District Judge's order, which had set aside the Board's order declaring the institution as a temple, was restored. The court awarded costs throughout to the appellants.