{"id":186337,"date":"2011-09-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parasamaya-kolerinatha-madam-vs-p-natesa-achari-on-22-september-2011"},"modified":"2018-04-05T09:58:31","modified_gmt":"2018-04-05T04:28:31","slug":"parasamaya-kolerinatha-madam-vs-p-natesa-achari-on-22-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parasamaya-kolerinatha-madam-vs-p-natesa-achari-on-22-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"Parasamaya Kolerinatha Madam … vs P.Natesa Achari & … on 22 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Parasamaya Kolerinatha Madam … vs P.Natesa Achari & … on 22 September, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: R.V.Raveendran<\/div>\n
Bench: R.V. Raveendran, H.L. Gokhale<\/div>\n
                                                       1\n\n\n\n                                                                            Reportable\n\n\n                    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n\n                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n                       CIVIL APPEAL NO.8439 OF 2001\n\n\n\n\n\nParasamaya Kolerinatha Madam, Tirunelveli                         ... Appellant\n\n\nVs.\n\n\nP.Natesa Achari & Ors.                                            ... Respondents\n\n\n\n\n\n                                 J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
       The  appellant  Math  was the  plaintiff  in a suit (C.S.No.2\/1983) filed <\/p>\n
against the respondents 1 and 2 (defendants 1 and 2) and two others on the <\/p>\n
file of the Madras High Court. The  appellant math  situated in Tirunelveli, <\/p>\n
claims   to   be   the   owner   of   property   bearing   No.16,   Chandrabanu   Street, <\/p>\n
Komaleeswararpet   also   described   as   Komaleeswaranpettai,   Chennai <\/p>\n
(described   in   the   first   schedule   to   the   plaint)   known   as   Parasamaya <\/p>\n
                                                2<\/span><\/p>\n
Kolerinatha   Madam   and   several   idols   including   those   of   Goddess <\/p>\n
Meenakshi, Lord Vigneshwara, Lord Murugan installed therein (described in <\/p>\n
the second schedule to the plaint), together referred to as the `suit property’.\n<\/p>\n
2.      The plaint averments in brief are: The appellant is a Math established <\/p>\n
several   centuries   ago   at   Tirunelveli   by   Swami   Anavaratha   Soundaraja <\/p>\n
Perumal.   The   Mathadhipathi   of   the   Math   is   elected   for   life   by   the <\/p>\n
Viswakarma community.  In the year 1922, a suit (OS No.58\/1922 as the file <\/p>\n
of the Sub-court, Tirunelveli) was filed for framing a scheme for regulating <\/p>\n
the succession and administration of the plaintiff Math and its properties. In <\/p>\n
the   said   suit,   a   scheme   was   framed   by   order   dated   2.5.1925.   The   suit <\/p>\n
property was one of the properties shown as vested in the Math in the final <\/p>\n
decree in the said scheme suit. The suit property was owned by the plaintiff <\/p>\n
Math for several centuries and the Head of the Math would stay there during <\/p>\n
his   visit   to   the   city.   His   disciples   were   regularly   using   the   premises   and <\/p>\n
staying therein. The Math premises were being managed by a nominee of the <\/p>\n
Math.   The   idol   of   Goddess   Meenakshi   and   the   statue   of   the   Head   of   the <\/p>\n
Math with his Padukas were installed by the Math in the suit property in the <\/p>\n
eighteenth   century   and   were   worshipped   by   the  disciples   of  the   Math   and <\/p>\n
other devotees. As the Headquarters of the Math was situated at the far-away <\/p>\n
                                                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
Tirunelveli,   the   Mathadhipathi   had   entrusted   the   management   of   the   said <\/p>\n
Math   property   to   nominated   Agent\/s   who   were   the   local   elders   of   the <\/p>\n
Viswakarma   community.   When   a   new   Mathadhipathi   was   installed   on <\/p>\n
17.8.1981,   he   sent   his   agent   to   routinely   enquire   about   the   affairs   of   the <\/p>\n
Math property in Chennai and learnt that the persons earlier managing the <\/p>\n
property had handed over the management to defendants 1 and 2. When the <\/p>\n
Mathadhipathi visited Chennai in 1982 and stayed in the suit property. One <\/p>\n
R. Venugopal Achari who was appointed to look after the suit property in <\/p>\n
the   year   1963,   informed   the   Mathadhipathi   that   he   had   handed   over <\/p>\n
management   to   Kanagasabapathy   Achary   who   in   turn   handed   over <\/p>\n
management   to   defendants.   When   the   Mathadhipathi   sent   word   to <\/p>\n
defendants to come and discuss the affairs of the Math, they did not turn up, <\/p>\n
but   the   community   people   spoke   to   the   Mathadipathi   and   made   several <\/p>\n
complaints about the irregular and ineffective management by defendants 1 <\/p>\n
and 2. Further inquiries revealed that defendants 1 and 2 were attempting to <\/p>\n
claim   that   the   suit   property   with   the   Meenakshiamman   idol   as   a   temple <\/p>\n
independent of the Math, managed by the local Viswakarma community and <\/p>\n
had arranged for Kumbabishekam without the knowledge and consent of the <\/p>\n
Mathadhipathi.   In  view   of the  above,   the  plaintiff   Math  filed   the  said   suit <\/p>\n
and   sought   a   declaration   of   title   to   the   suit   property   (with   the   idols   and <\/p>\n
                                               4<\/span><\/p>\n
movables therein) and delivery thereof.\n<\/p>\n
3.      Defendants   1   and   2   resisted   the   suit.   They   contended   that   the   suit <\/p>\n
property   (describing   it   as   the   Meenakshiamman   temple)   was   a <\/p>\n
denominational   temple   that   has   been   in   existence   for   the   benefit   of   the <\/p>\n
members   of   the   Viswakarma   community   living   in   Komaleeswararpet   in <\/p>\n
Chennai. The suit property was a temple and the Math did not `exist’ in the <\/p>\n
suit property. The plaintiff Math had no connection with the suit property.\n<\/p>\n
Neither   the   final   decree   nor   the   scheme   in   the   scheme   suit   (O.S.No.58   of <\/p>\n
1922)   relating   to   the   plaintiff   Mutt   was   binding   on   the   members   of   the <\/p>\n
community living in Komaleeswararpet in Chennai as they were not parties <\/p>\n
to the scheme suit. Though the temple in Komaleeswararpet was dedicated <\/p>\n
to   Goddess   Meenakshiamman,   as   Parasamaya   Kolerinatha   Swami   was   a <\/p>\n
great saint and Guru of Viswakarma community, the said temple was also <\/p>\n
called by the name of the said Swami, but the plaintiff Math has nothing to <\/p>\n
do  with the  suit  property.     The  said  denominational  temple  was  under  the <\/p>\n
management  of the members  of the Viswakarma community  through their <\/p>\n
elected   representatives.   In   the   beginning   of   the   twentieth   century,   one <\/p>\n
Arumuga Achary was managing the affairs of the temple. Later one C. V.\n<\/p>\n
Raju   Achary   was   the   trustee   till   1938.   From   1938,   Adhimoola   Achary <\/p>\n
                                               5<\/span><\/p>\n
functioned   as   a   Trustee   with   the   assistance   of   a   committee   of   members.\n<\/p>\n
Kanagasabai   Achari   became   the   Trustee   in   1963   and   in   1969,   first   and <\/p>\n
second defendants along with one more person were elected as trustees and <\/p>\n
they were in management. The idols and statues in the temple were installed <\/p>\n
by   the  members   of  the   Viswakarma   community   of  Komaleeswararpet   and <\/p>\n
not by the plaintiff Math. The community performed the Kumbhabhishekam <\/p>\n
of   the   temple   on   21.1.1983.   They   filed   a   petition   in   the   office   of   the <\/p>\n
Commissioner   for   Religious   and   Charitable   Endowments   for   framing   a <\/p>\n
scheme for the said temple by impleading the plaintiff math as a respondent.\n<\/p>\n
The property did not belong to the Math and that for more than a century, <\/p>\n
the   property   has   been   under   the   absolute   control   of   the   members   of   the <\/p>\n
Viswakarma  community   of  Komaleeswararpet.   As   the   suit  property   was  a <\/p>\n
temple and   not  a   Math  as   defined   under  the   Tamil  Nadu  Hindu  Religious <\/p>\n
and   Charitable   Endowments   Act,   1959   (for   short   `the   Act’)   and   as   the <\/p>\n
plaintiff   Math   have   nothing   to   do   with   the   property,   the   suit   was   not <\/p>\n
maintainable and was liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
4.       The High Court framed four issues. The main issue was whether the <\/p>\n
plaintiff   Math  was entitled   to the  ownership  of the  suit  property   and if  so <\/p>\n
whether   it   was   entitled   to   recover   possession.   Both   sides   led   oral   and <\/p>\n
                                                6<\/span><\/p>\n
documentary   evidence.   After   detailed   consideration   of   the   several <\/p>\n
documents exhibited by the parties and the oral evidence, the learned Single <\/p>\n
Judge   who   tried   the   suit,   decreed   the   suit   by   judgment   and   decree   dated <\/p>\n
20.4.1993. He held that there was abundant evidence to show that the suit <\/p>\n
property   belonged   to   the   plaintiff   Math   and   it   was   not   the   property   of <\/p>\n
Viswakarma   community   residing   at   Komaleeswararpet,   Chennai.   He   also <\/p>\n
accepted the case of the plaintiff Math that the Thirty Second Head of the <\/p>\n
plaintiff  Math   had  installed   the   idol  of  the  Goddess  Meenakshi   more  than <\/p>\n
two   centuries   ago.   The   learned   Single   Judge   also   referred   to   the   series   of <\/p>\n
documents   produced   by   the   defendants   themselves   which   stated   that <\/p>\n
Meenakshiamman   temple   was   situated   in   Parasamaya   Kolerinatha   Swami <\/p>\n
Math.   The   learned   Single   Judge   held   that   merely   because   idols   were <\/p>\n
installed and worshipped in a Math premises, the property will not cease to <\/p>\n
be   a   Math   nor   will   it   become   a   place   of   public   religious   worship.\n<\/p>\n
Consequently the learned Single Judge decreed the suit granting declaration <\/p>\n
of   title   and   directing   delivery   of   possession   of   the   suit   property   to   the <\/p>\n
plaintiff Math.\n<\/p>\n
5.      Feeling  aggrieved,  defendants 1 and 2 filed an intra-court appeal. A <\/p>\n
Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   allowed   the   said   appeal   (OSA <\/p>\n
                                                   7<\/span><\/p>\n
No.29\/1994)   by   the   impugned   judgment   dated   29.4.1999.   The   division <\/p>\n
bench held that the oral and documentary evidence established the existence <\/p>\n
of   Meenakshiamman   temple   in   the   suit   property,   possessing   the <\/p>\n
characteristics   of   a   temple.   The   Managing   Committee   elected   from <\/p>\n
Viswakarma   community   was   managing   the   said   temple,   attending   to   its <\/p>\n
repairs,   paying   municipal   taxes   and   conducting   festivals.   It   held   that   the <\/p>\n
characteristics   of  a   Math   were   absent   and   the   plaintiff   Math   had   failed   to <\/p>\n
prove that the affairs of the Math alone were carried on in the premises; and <\/p>\n
as the goddess Meenakshiamman  was being worshipped by the public and <\/p>\n
temple festivals were being regularly conducted, the finding of the learned <\/p>\n
Single Judge that the installation of idol of Meenakshi did not extinguish the <\/p>\n
rights   of   the   Math,   was   not   sustainable.   The   division   bench   held   the   suit <\/p>\n
property   to   be   a   `temple’   and   consequently   dismissed   the   suit.   The   said <\/p>\n
judgment and decree is challenged in this appeal by special leave.\n<\/p>\n
6.            On the contentions urged three questions arise for consideration :\n<\/p>\n
      (i)        Whether the suit property belongs to the Plaintiff Math? <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      (ii)       Whether   the   Division   Bench   ignored   the   material   documents <\/p>\n
                 exhibited   by   plaintiffs   and   defendants   in   holding   that   the   suit <\/p>\n
                 property did not belong to the plaintiff Math?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n                                                           8<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      (iii)        Whether the property of the Math ceased to belong to the Math, as <\/p>\n
                   idols   were   installed   therein   are   worshipped   by   the   members   of <\/p>\n
                   Viswakarma community, thereby converting it to a temple.  <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
7.             As   all   these   questions   are   interconnected,   we   will   consider   them <\/p>\n
together.   We may   at  first  refer  to  the  definitions   of  the words  `Math’  and <\/p>\n
`Temple’ in the Act.  Section 6(13) of the Act defines `Math’ thus :\n<\/p>\n
               “Math means a Hindu religious institution with properties attached thereto <\/p>\n
               and presided over by a person, the succession to whose office devolves in <\/p>\n
               accordance   with   the   direction   of   the   founder   of   the   institution   or   is <\/p>\n
               regulated by usage and (i) whose duty it is to engage himself in imparting <\/p>\n
               religious instruction or rendering spiritual service; or (ii) who exercises or <\/p>\n
               claims to exercise spiritual headship over a body of disciples; and includes <\/p>\n
               places   of   religious   worship   or   instruction   which   are   appurtenant   to   the <\/p>\n
               institution.      xxx       xxx”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
Section 6(20) of the said Act defines the term “temple” as<\/p>\n
               “Temple means a place by whatever designation known used as a place of <\/p>\n
               public religious worship, and dedicated to, or for the benefit of, or used as <\/p>\n
               of right by, the Hindu community or of any section thereof, as a place of <\/p>\n
               public religious worship.   xxx       xxx”\n<\/p>\n
8.             The distinction between maths and temples, stated in several judicial <\/p>\n
pronouncement has found statutory recognition in the aforesaid definitions.\n<\/p>\n
There are two necessary ingredients for a structure or place to be described <\/p>\n
as   a   temple   under   the   Act.   First   is   its   use   as   a   place   of   public   religious <\/p>\n
worship. Second is dedication of the structure or place to, or for the benefit <\/p>\n
of,   or   use   as   of   right   by,   the   Hindu   community   or   a   section   thereof,   as   a <\/p>\n
                                                 9<\/span><\/p>\n
place of public religious worship. The mere fact that members of the public <\/p>\n
are   allowed   to   worship   at   a   place,   will   not   make   it   a   public   temple.   The <\/p>\n
Hindu   sentiments   and   the   tenets   of   Hinduism   do   not   normally   exclude <\/p>\n
worshippers   from  a  place   of  worship,   even   when   it   is   private   or  part   of  a <\/p>\n
Math. Therefore, the crucial test is not whether the members of the public <\/p>\n
are   permitted   to  worship,   but  whether   the  worship   by   the   members   of  the <\/p>\n
public   is   as   of   right   by   the   Hindu   community   or   any   section   thereof,   or <\/p>\n
whether a place has been dedicated a place of public religious worship. [See <\/p>\n
: the decision  of the  Privy  Council in  Mundacheri  Koman vs.  Atchuthan  –\n<\/p>\n
ILR 58 Mad. 91, the decisions of the Madras High Court in Madras Hindu  <\/p>\n
Religious   Endowments   Board   vs.   Deivanai   Ammal  –   1953   (2)   MLJ   688;\n<\/p>\n
Bodendraswami Mutt  vs. The President of the Board of Commissioners for  <\/p>\n
Hindu Religious Endowments  – 1955 (1) MLJ 60, and  The Commissioner,  <\/p>\n
Hindu  Religious  &  Charitable  Endowment   (Admn.)  Department  vs.  T.A.T.\n<\/p>\n
Srimath Gnaniar Madalayam – 2003 (1) MLJ 726].\n<\/p>\n
9.      In  Goswami  Shri  Mahalaxmi  Vahuji  vs.  Shah Ranchhoddas  Kalidas  <\/p>\n
(Dead)   &   Ors.<\/a>  –   AIR   1970   SC   2025   and  T.D.   Gopalan   vs.   The  <\/p>\n
Commissioner   of   Hindu   Religions   and   Charitable   Endowments,   Madras<\/a>  –\n<\/p>\n
AIR 1972 SC 1716, this Court held that the origin of the temple, the manner <\/p>\n
                                                10<\/span><\/p>\n
in which the affairs are managed, the gifts received by it, the rights exercised <\/p>\n
by   devotees   in   regard   to   worship   therein   and   the   consciousness   of   the <\/p>\n
devotees themselves as to the character of the temple, are the factors which <\/p>\n
go to show whether a temple is a public temple or a private temple. It is also <\/p>\n
well-settled  that mere installation  and consecration of idols in a place will <\/p>\n
not make it a place of public religious worship. Where the evidence shows <\/p>\n
that   the   disputed   property   retained   the   identity   as   a   Math   and   where <\/p>\n
Gurupoojas   (functions   celebrating\/important   days   associated   with   the <\/p>\n
founder   or   head   of   the   math)   are   performed   regularly,   it   will   not   lose   the <\/p>\n
characteristic   of   a   Math   and   become   a   temple,  merely   because   idols   have <\/p>\n
been installed and members of a section of Hindu community offer worship.\n<\/p>\n
In fact,  this fact is now statutorily  recognized in the definition of Math in <\/p>\n
section 6(13) of the Act which makes it clear that a Math includes any place  <\/p>\n
of religious worship which is appurtenant to the institution of a Math.\n<\/p>\n
10.     This   Court   in  Radhakanta   Deb   vs.   The   Commissioner   of   Hindu  <\/p>\n
Religious   Endowments,   Orissa<\/a>  [AIR   1981   SC   798]   on   a   conspectus   of <\/p>\n
earlier   authorities,   laid   down   the   following   tests   to   provide   sufficient <\/p>\n
guidelines to determine on the facts of each case, whether an endowment is <\/p>\n
of a private or a public nature :\n<\/p>\n
                                                    11<\/span><\/p>\n
       “Thus, on a conspectus of the authorities mentioned above, the following <\/p>\n
       tests may be laid down as providing sufficient guidelines to determine on <\/p>\n
       the facts of each case whether an endowment is of a private or of a public <\/p>\n
       nature :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n       (1)    Where   the   origin   of   the   endowment   cannot   be   ascertained,   the <\/p>\n
              question whether the user of the temple by member of the public is as <\/p>\n
              of right;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n       (2)    The fact that the control and management vests either in a large body <\/p>\n
              of persons or in the members of the public and the founder does not <\/p>\n
              retain   any   control   over   the   management.   Allied   to   this   may   be   a <\/p>\n
              circumstance where the evidence shows that there is provision for a <\/p>\n
              scheme   to   be   framed   by   associating   the   members   of   the   public   at <\/p>\n
              large;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n       (3)    Where,   however,   a   document   is   available   to   prove   the   nature   and  <\/p>\n
              origin of the endowment and the recitals of the document show that  <\/p>\n
              the   control   and   management   of   the   temple   is   retained   with   the  <\/p>\n
              founder   or   his   descendants,   and   that   extensive   properties   are  <\/p>\n
              dedicated for the purpose of the maintenance of the temple belonging  <\/p>\n
              to the founder himself, this will be a conclusive proof to show that the  <\/p>\n
              endowment was of a private nature;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n       (4)    Where the evidence shows that the founder of the endowment did not <\/p>\n
              make   any   stipulation   for   offerings   or   contributions   to   be   made   by <\/p>\n
              members   of   the   public   to   the   temple,   this   would   be   an   important <\/p>\n
              intrinsic   circumstance   to   indicate   the   private   nature   of   the <\/p>\n
              endowment.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
                                                                          (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
11.    We may also in this context refer to one of the earliest judgments of <\/p>\n
the Madras High Court. In Thambu Chetti Subraya Chetti vs. A.T. Arundel – <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
ILR   6   (1883)   Mad.   287.   The   question   considered   therein   was   whether   a <\/p>\n
building known as the Dharma Sivachari Mattam could be considered to be <\/p>\n
a place of public worship, as idols were installed in the said Math premises, <\/p>\n
                                                       12<\/span><\/p>\n
so   that   exemption   from   payment   of   municipal   tax   could   be   availed.   A <\/p>\n
Division Bench of the Madras High Court held :\n<\/p>\n
        “The original signification of the term Math or Matha is a building or set <\/p>\n
        of buildings in which Hindu religious mendicants reside under a superior, <\/p>\n
        who is called a Mahant. This spiritual superior is regarded with veneration <\/p>\n
        by the members of the sect, and is installed with some ceremony, and not <\/p>\n
        infrequently receives an honorific title. Although a place of worship is not  <\/p>\n
        a  necessary  part  of   a  Math,  such   a  place   is,  as  may  be   expected,  often  <\/p>\n
        found in such institutions, and, though intended primarily for the use of  <\/p>\n
        the   inmates,   the   public   may   be   admitted   to   it,   and   so   this   part   of   the  <\/p>\n
        building   may   become   a   place   of   religious   worship.   A   Hindu   Math <\/p>\n
        somewhat resembles a Catholic Monastery. From the circumstance that a <\/p>\n
        portion   of   it   is   not   infrequently   devoted   to   worship,   and   that   the   public <\/p>\n
        may   be   admitted   to   it,   the   term   Math   has   acquired   a   secondary <\/p>\n
        signification as a small temple.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n        Taking the whole of the facts mentioned in the judgment, we see reason to <\/p>\n
        think   that   the   institution   was   a   Math   in   the   original   rather   than   the <\/p>\n
        secondary sense   of that  term………….when  the  Mattam   is in  part  of in <\/p>\n
        whole   used   for   purposes   other   than   those   of   public   worship,   it   will   be <\/p>\n
        liable to taxation.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                                (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
12.     Therefore, the fact that there are some idols installed in a Math and <\/p>\n
members of the public offer worship to such idol will not make it a place of <\/p>\n
public religious worship, that is, a temple, if the other ingredients of a math <\/p>\n
exist or if it is established to be a premises belonging to a math and used by <\/p>\n
the math for its purposes.  If the property in its origin was a math property, it <\/p>\n
cannot  be  treated  as  a  temple   merely  because  the  math   had installed  idols <\/p>\n
and permitted worship by the members of the community and the premises <\/p>\n
is used for rendering charitable and religious services. The Division Bench <\/p>\n
has   proceeded   on   the   erroneous   impression   that   existence   of   an   idol   in   a <\/p>\n
                                              13<\/span><\/p>\n
math property, when worshipped by the members of the community, would <\/p>\n
convert the math property into a temple.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
13.     The   plaintiff   (Parasamaya   Kolerinatha   Madam)   specifically   claims <\/p>\n
that   the   suit   property   belonged   to   the   plaintiff   Mutt   and   produced   several <\/p>\n
documents,   the   genuineness   of   which   was   not   under   question.   We   may <\/p>\n
examine   the   said   evidence.   Exhibit-P1   is   the   certified   copy   of   the <\/p>\n
preliminary   decree   in   the   scheme   suit   (Ponnaivasan   Achari   &   Ors.   v.\n<\/p>\n
Nelliappa   Achari   –  OS  No.58  of  1922,  dated  29.3.1924)  with  reference  to <\/p>\n
Parasamaya   Kolerinatha   Madam   situated   at   Tirunelveli   and   its   properties.\n<\/p>\n
The said preliminary decree declares   that Parasamaya Kolerinatha Madam <\/p>\n
situated at Tirunelveli is a public religious and charitable foundation for the <\/p>\n
benefit of five sections of Vishwakarma community of the Tamil districts of <\/p>\n
Southern   India   as   also   Travancore,   Cochin   and   Malabar,   holding   the <\/p>\n
properties mentioned in the plaint schedule; that the office of Mathadhipathi <\/p>\n
of the said Mutt was vacant; that it was necessary to frame the scheme for <\/p>\n
the appointment of a Mathadhipathi and regulate succession to the office of <\/p>\n
the   Mathadhipathi   and   vest   the   Mutt   and   such   property   in   such <\/p>\n
Mathadhipathi.   The   suit   property   was   one   of   the   properties   shown   as <\/p>\n
belonging  to  the  math.  After   such  preliminary  decree,   a  draft  scheme  was <\/p>\n
                                             14<\/span><\/p>\n
filed and a scheme was framed on 2.5.1925. Ex. P2 is the final decree dated <\/p>\n
10.9.1927 in the said  suit (OS  No.58\/1922) which confirms that a scheme <\/p>\n
has been framed for the said Parasamaya Kolerinatha Madam, Tirunelveli on <\/p>\n
2.5.1925; that the said scheme  provided  for appointment of Mathadhipathi <\/p>\n
and regulating the succession to the office of Mathadhipathi; that as per the <\/p>\n
directions of the court, the disciples of the plaintiff Mutt was convened on <\/p>\n
5.9.1927   and   Srimath   Rajaratna   Swami   was   unanimously   elected   as   the <\/p>\n
Mathadhipathi. The final decree declared that the said Rajaratna Swamigal <\/p>\n
was the Mathadhipathi of the institution in whom, according to the scheme <\/p>\n
settled  in  the preliminary  decree,  the properties   described  in the  said  final <\/p>\n
decree vested. The first schedule thereto enumerates the properties owned by <\/p>\n
the Math situated at Tirunelveli and third schedule describes the agricultural <\/p>\n
lands owned by the Math. The fourth schedule describes the movables. The <\/p>\n
fifth schedule to the said decree describes the two properties situated outside <\/p>\n
Tirunelveli   district   –   one   property   in   Travancore   area   and   the   property <\/p>\n
situated   at   Komaleeswararpet,   Chennai   described   as   “Srimath   Parasamaya <\/p>\n
Kolerinatha Swami Madam – Sri Meenakshiamman  temple and its assets”.\n<\/p>\n
This document establishes beyond doubt that at a undisputed point of time, <\/p>\n
the   said   suit   property   was   the   property   belonging   to   the   plaintiff   Math, <\/p>\n
vested in its Madhathipathi.\n<\/p>\n
                                                15<\/span><\/p>\n
14.     As against the said documents (Ex P1 and P2) which trace the title to <\/p>\n
more   than   55   years   before   filing   of   the   suit,   the   defendants   have   not <\/p>\n
produced   any   title   deeds.   The   contention   of  the   defendants   that   as   neither <\/p>\n
they   nor   the   trustees   preceding   them,   were   parties   to   the   scheme   suit   of <\/p>\n
1922,   the   decree   in   the   said   scheme   suit   was   not   binding   on   them,   is   not <\/p>\n
tenable.   The   defendants   have   produced   documents   to   show   that   the   suit <\/p>\n
property and the temple therein are being managed by the members of the <\/p>\n
community   at   Komaleeswararpet   from   around   1938   onwards.   Obviously <\/p>\n
therefore   the   question   of   impleading   either   defendants   1   and   2   or   their <\/p>\n
predecessors in 1924 or 1925 did not arise. In fact plaintiff Math does not <\/p>\n
deny the fact that idol of Meenakshiamman is installed in the suit property <\/p>\n
and that the day to day management of the suit property was entrusted to the <\/p>\n
Viswakarma   community   members   in   Komaleeswararpet   Chennai,   as   the <\/p>\n
head   quarters   of  the   Math   was   situated   at   Tirunelveli.   The   entrustment   of <\/p>\n
management   by   the   Math   to   the   elders\/members   of   the   Viswakarma <\/p>\n
Community   under   the   guidance   and   supervision   of   the   Math,   would   not <\/p>\n
divest the title of the Math to the property.\n<\/p>\n
15.     We may next refer to the undisputed documents which establish that <\/p>\n
the   suit   property   where   the   idol   of   Meenakshiamman   is   installed   is   the <\/p>\n
                                                 16<\/span><\/p>\n
property of the plaintiff Math. The most important of the documents, which <\/p>\n
would clinch the case in support of the plaintiff Math is Ex. P16 which is a <\/p>\n
certified copy of the petition dated 7.10.1978 under section 64(1) of the Act <\/p>\n
(OA   No.102\/1978)   filed   by   defendants   1   and   2   and   other   managing <\/p>\n
committee   members   of   Meenakshiamman   Temple   before   the   Deputy <\/p>\n
Commissioner   for   Hindu   Religious   and   Charitable   Endowments <\/p>\n
(Administration), Madras, for framing a scheme for appointment of Trustees <\/p>\n
and   management   of   the   temple.   The   subject-matter   of   the   petition   is <\/p>\n
described   as  “In   the   matter   of   Sri   Meenakshiamman   temple   situated   in  <\/p>\n
Srimad   Parasamaya   Kolarinatha   Swamigal   Mutt   in   16,   Chandra   Banu  <\/p>\n
Street,   Komaleeswaranpettai,   Madras”.  In   para   2   of   the   said   petition, <\/p>\n
defendants 1 and 2 and other petitioners therein averred: “There is a temple  <\/p>\n
dedicated   to   Sri   Meenakshiamman   in   Chandrabanu   Street,  <\/p>\n
Komaleeswaranpet,   Madras-2.  The   institution   in   question   is   located   in   a  <\/p>\n
Mutt belonging to Srimath Parasamaya Kolarinathaswami. The said Swami  <\/p>\n
was   the   head   of   the   members   of   the   Viswakarma   Community   residing   in  <\/p>\n
Komaleeswaranpet, from time immemorial.”  Having made such admission, <\/p>\n
they however claimed that “though the temple has been located in the Mutt, <\/p>\n
the   Mutt   is   no   longer   in   existence   and   that   the   institution   in   question   has <\/p>\n
been   considered   as   the   property   of   the   members   of   the   Viswakarma <\/p>\n
                                               17<\/span><\/p>\n
Community……….   the   institution   in   question   has   always   been   under   the <\/p>\n
management   of   the   members   of   the   said   community   ever   since   its <\/p>\n
inception.” The said petition was dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
16.      Several   other   documents   produced   by   plaintiff   Math   issued   by   the <\/p>\n
defendants   and   their   predecessors   also   establish   that   the   suit  property   was <\/p>\n
always considered to be the property of the Math. They are :\n<\/p>\n
(i)      Ex.P2 dated 16.10.1963 is a pamphlet issued by R.Kanakasabhapathy <\/p>\n
Achari   on   behalf   of   Srimath   Parasamaya   Kolerinatha   Swami   Madam, <\/p>\n
Komaleeswararpet Chennai, inviting devotees to participate in the worship <\/p>\n
of Meenakshiammam during Navarathri celebrations.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)     Ex.   P6   is   the   Navrathri   Mahotsava   invitation\/pamphlet   issued   by   R.\n<\/p>\n
Kanagasabapathy Achari and others on 16.10.1963 describing the temple as <\/p>\n
“Srimath   Parasamaya   Kolerinatha   Swamigal   Madam   –   Vishwa   Karma <\/p>\n
Samooha  Aadheenam – Sri Meenakshi temple”.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)    Ex.   P7   is   an   invitation   pamphlet   dated   2.5.1970   in   connection   with <\/p>\n
Guru  pooja   offered   to  Nellai   Parasamaya   Kolerinatha   Guru  Swami  and   in <\/p>\n
that connection aradhana to Meenakshiammam and poor feeding at the suit <\/p>\n
property.\n<\/p>\n
(iv)     Ex.P8 is a receipt dated 10.5.1972 issued by first defendant for a sum <\/p>\n
of   Rs.3   towards   Gurupooja   and   the   receipt   is   issued   in   the   name   of   “Sri <\/p>\n
Parasamaya Kolerinatha Math —  Sri Meenakshiamman Temple”.\n<\/p>\n
                                             18<\/span><\/p>\n
(v)      Ex. P9 is a programme  schedule dated 21.9.1981 issued by the first <\/p>\n
defendant   in   regard   to   the   celebration   of   Navarathri   festival   at   “Srimath <\/p>\n
Parasamaya Kolerinatha Swami Madam – Sri Meenakshiamman Navarathri <\/p>\n
celebrations.”\n<\/p>\n
(vi)     Ex. P13 is a pamphlet relating to a musical festival to be held between <\/p>\n
1.6.1960 to 5.6.1960 in connection with the Kumbabhishekham at “Chennai <\/p>\n
Komaleeswararpet,   Chandrabanu   Street,   Nellai   Srimath   Parasamaya <\/p>\n
Kolerinatha Math — Sri Meenakshi Sannidhi”, issued by the Math Temple <\/p>\n
Festival   Committee   on   the   directions   of   Nellai   Jagatguru   Shrimath <\/p>\n
Parasamaya   Kolerinathar   Adeenam,   37th  Jagatguru   Swami   Sivananda <\/p>\n
Muneeswara.\n<\/p>\n
(vii)    Ex.   P14   is   an   invitation   pamphlet   dated   25.5.1960   issued   by   the <\/p>\n
Managing Committee of “Nellai Jagatguru Srimath Parasamaya Kolerinathar <\/p>\n
Adeenam”   regarding   Sri   Meenakshiamman   Idol   Procession   in <\/p>\n
Komaleeswararpet   in   the   presence   of   Nellai   Jagatguru   Parasamaya <\/p>\n
Kolerinathar 37th Jagatguru Swami Sivananda Muneeswarar.\n<\/p>\n
(viii) Ex. P15 is a pamphlet dated 6.7.1960 issued by the person-in-charge <\/p>\n
Parasamaya   Kolerinatha   Madam,   No.11,   Chandrabanu   Street, <\/p>\n
Komaleeswaranpet,   Chennai,   in   connection   with   the   celebration   of   the <\/p>\n
coronation of the 37th Peetadhipathi Jagatguru Parasamaya Kolerinathar.\n<\/p>\n
(ix)     Ex.P17 is the pamphlet dated 21.3.1960 issued by the management of <\/p>\n
Parasamaya   Kolerinatha   Madam   mutt,   Kamaleeswaranpettai   in   connection <\/p>\n
                                              19<\/span><\/p>\n
with a festival in regard to Godess Meenakshiamman installed two centuries <\/p>\n
earlier by 32nd Jagatguru Srinath Swami Anavaradacharya.\n<\/p>\n
(x)    Ex. P18 dated 18.7.1960 is the invitation to the disciples and followers <\/p>\n
of Shrimath Parasamaya Kolerinatha Swami to have darshan of the Swami at <\/p>\n
Parasamaya   Kelarinatha   Swami   Math,   No.11,   Chandrabanu   Street, <\/p>\n
Komaleeswararpet, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
It is not necessary to refer to other documents  exhibited by plaintiff math, <\/p>\n
most of which relate to a period subsequent to the filing of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
17.    The defendants marked Ex D1 to D 42. Most of the documents related <\/p>\n
to the festivals conducted in connection with the Meenakshiamman temple <\/p>\n
or   regarding   the   handing   over   of   management   of   the   temple   from   one <\/p>\n
managing   committee   to   another   managing   committee.   Many   relate   to   the <\/p>\n
period subsequent to the suit and not relevant. But several of them relate to <\/p>\n
the   undisputed   period   before   the   suit   and   clearly   prove   the   case   of   the <\/p>\n
plaintiff Math. We may refer to some of defendants’ exhibits:\n<\/p>\n
(i)    Ex. D1 dated 7.4.1938 is the pamphlet issued by the person-in-charge <\/p>\n
of   the   suit   property   –   Adhimoola   Achari   in   regard   to   appointment   of <\/p>\n
Committee   for   managing   “Sri   Meenakshi   Temple   situated   in   Chennai <\/p>\n
Komaleeswaranpettai Srimath Parasamaya Kolerinatha Swami Math”.\n<\/p>\n
                                            20<\/span><\/p>\n
(ii)     Ex.   D8   is   a   pamphlet   dated   16.10.1941   by   Adhimoola   Achari, <\/p>\n
`Dharmakartha’   of   the   temple   in   regard   to   a   festival   at   Sri   Meenakshi <\/p>\n
Temple   at   Sri   Parasamaya   Kolerinatha   Madam,   Kamaleeswaranpet, <\/p>\n
Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)    Ex. D16 is a pamphlet about the appointment of Managing Committee <\/p>\n
of Sri Meenakshiamman temple at Srimath Parasamaya Kolerinatha Swami <\/p>\n
Madam for the term 17.6.1945 to 5.3.1950.\n<\/p>\n
(iv)     Ex. D24 is the Invitation Pamphlet dated 10.5.1972 in connection with <\/p>\n
Guru Pooja of the founder of the plaintiff Math at the suit property.\n<\/p>\n
(v)      Ex.   D32   is   a   pamphlet   dated   5.10.1966   issued   by   Kanagasabapathy <\/p>\n
Achari   in   regard   to   Navrathri   festival   in   Meenakshi   Temple   at   Srimath <\/p>\n
Parasamaya Kolerinatha Madam.\n<\/p>\n
18.      These documents irrefutably establish that the temple was a part of the <\/p>\n
Math; that the Math appointed a local elder of Viswakarma Community at <\/p>\n
Komaleeswaranpet   to   manage   the   suit   property   and   the   place   of   worship <\/p>\n
therein, that the local elder handed over management to successive elected <\/p>\n
managing   committees   (from   the   Viswakarma   community   at <\/p>\n
Komaleeswaranpet,   Chennai)   to   be   in   day   to   day   management;   that   the <\/p>\n
defendants and their predecessors who were the members of the Managing <\/p>\n
Committee  of the  temple,  had  always  accepted   and described  the  place  of <\/p>\n
worship as being a part of Parasamaya Kolerinatha Guruswamigal Madam, <\/p>\n
                                                21<\/span><\/p>\n
that is plaintiff-Mutt. When some of the pamphlets exhibited by defendants <\/p>\n
describe   the   place   of   worship   in   the   Math   property   as   Meenakshiamman <\/p>\n
`koil’, the word was not used as referring to a `temple’ as defined in the Act, <\/p>\n
but   as   a   place   of   worship   always   as   part   of  and   belonging  to  the   plaintiff <\/p>\n
math.\n<\/p>\n
19.       The oral evidence the second defendant – T.R.Nataraj Achary (DW1) <\/p>\n
also establishes that Meenakshiamman  Koil was part of plaintiff Math.   In <\/p>\n
the examination-in-chief, he states that the suit property is Meenakshiamman <\/p>\n
temple which has been administered by a group of trustees elected\/appointed <\/p>\n
by the Viswakarma community in Komaleeswararpet and the temple belongs <\/p>\n
to   the   Viswakarma   community   of   Komaleeswararpet.   However   he   also <\/p>\n
stated   that   Srimat   Parasamaya   Kolerinatha   Swamigul,   who   lived   several <\/p>\n
centuries ago in Tirunelveli, was the Guru of Viswakarma community and <\/p>\n
there is a statue of the said Swami in the temple; that a sect of Viswakarma <\/p>\n
community regularly conducts Guru Pooja in honour of the founder of the <\/p>\n
Math in the premises. He extract below some of his answers which establish <\/p>\n
the case of the plaintiff Math:\n<\/p>\n
          “Q. Did the present Head of Mutt or the previous Head of Mutt stay in the <\/p>\n
          Meenakshi temple ?\n<\/p>\n
                                              22<\/span><\/p>\n
A. The present Head of the Mutt stayed only for one and a half hour and <\/p>\n
the previous Head of the Mutt might have come and stayed.”\n<\/p>\n
“Q:   This   notice   (Ex.D.24   and   Ex.P.7)   was   issued   by   64   Thalaikettu <\/p>\n
Viswakarma Community people, is it so?\n<\/p>\n
A: Yes. This pooja is being conducted by them.\n<\/p>\n
Q: See Ex. D.24 and Ex.P.7, there is a song in the beginning of the matter.\n<\/p>\n
A: Yes.\n<\/p>\n
Q:   The   Guru   referred   to   in   both   the   notification   in   the   song   is   Nellai <\/p>\n
Parasamaya Kolarinatha Swamigal, is it not?\n<\/p>\n
A: Yes.\n<\/p>\n
Q:  64  Thalaikattu   Viswakarma  Community  are   residing   in  Madras,   is  it <\/p>\n
so?\n<\/p>\n
A: Yes. They are living in Madras.\n<\/p>\n
Q: 64 Thalaikattu Viswakarma Community are celebrating (Guru) poojas <\/p>\n
in the suit property, is it not?\n<\/p>\n
A: Yes.\n<\/p>\n
Q:   That   Guru   Pooja   is   in   respect   of   Nellai   Parasamaya   Kolarinatha <\/p>\n
Swamigal?\n<\/p>\n
A: Yes.\n<\/p>\n
Q: Ex.P.7 was issued after you claimed to have been a trustee of the suit <\/p>\n
property?\n<\/p>\n
A: Yes.\n<\/p>\n
Q: Do you know that the present suit has been filed by Nellai Parasamaya <\/p>\n
Kolarinatha Swamigal?\n<\/p>\n
A: Yes. I am aware.\n<\/p>\n
Q:   There   is   a  stone   image   of  Nellai   Parasamaya   Kolarinatha   in   the   suit <\/p>\n
property?\n<\/p>\n
A: Yes.\n<\/p>\n
                                                23<\/span><\/p>\n
       Q: This image in the suit property is that of the man you are referring to?\n<\/p>\n
       A: Yes.\n<\/p>\n
       Q: The chappals (`Padukas’) owned by him are in the suit property?\n<\/p>\n
       A: Yes.\n<\/p>\n
       Q: Ex.P.9 was a notice issued by you for Navarathiri Festival in the suit <\/p>\n
       property in 1981. Your name is also there?\n<\/p>\n
       A: Yes. My name is also there.\n<\/p>\n
       Q:   In   this   document   the   suit   property   is   described   as   Parasamaya <\/p>\n
       Kolarinatha Swamigal Madam?\n<\/p>\n
       A: Yes.\n<\/p>\n
       Q:   So   from   1938   to   1981   suit   property   is   described   as   Parasamaya <\/p>\n
       Kolarinatha Madam?\n<\/p>\n
       A:   Yes.   It   is   from   the   beginning   known   as   Parasamaya   Kolarinatha <\/p>\n
       Swamigal Madam.\n<\/p>\n
       Q: This document Ex.D.30 (Page No.9) is also filed by you?\n<\/p>\n
       A: Yes.\n<\/p>\n
       Q: There also (Page 8 of Ex.D.30) it is referred that Kolarinatha Swamigal <\/p>\n
       installed the Meenakshi Amman Idol.\n<\/p>\n
       A: Yes.”\n<\/p>\n
20.    The   learned   Single   Judge   has   referred   to   oral   and   documentary <\/p>\n
evidence   in   detail   and   recorded   a   categorical   finding   that   the   property <\/p>\n
belonged to the plaintiff Mutt and that the claim of the defendants that the <\/p>\n
plaintiff   Math   had   nothing   to   do   with   the   suit   property   was   false   and <\/p>\n
untenable.   On   the   other   hand,   the   Division   Bench   failed   to   consider   the <\/p>\n
                                                  24<\/span><\/p>\n
significance   of   these   relevant   documents.   It   inferred   that   the   suit   property <\/p>\n
ceased to be a Math property and became a `temple’  as defined in section <\/p>\n
6(20)   of   the   Act,   because   the   Meenakshiamman   idol   was   installed   in   the <\/p>\n
Math   property   and   the   members   of   the   community   were   offering   worship <\/p>\n
and   festivals   were   conducted   and   celebrated   by   the   Managing   Committee <\/p>\n
and   Municipal   taxes   were   being   paid   by   the   Managing   Committee.   But   it <\/p>\n
failed   to   notice   that   mere   existence   of   idols   in   Math   premises   or   worship <\/p>\n
thereof  by  the public  would not  convert  a  property  belonging  to the  Math <\/p>\n
into   a   temple.   It   failed   to   notice   that   installation   of   the   idol <\/p>\n
Meenakshiamman   and   installation   of   the   statue   of   Sri   Swami   Parasamaya <\/p>\n
Kolerinatha Guru and conducting the festivals and Gurupoojas were part of <\/p>\n
Math’s activities being held and conducted in the name of the plaintiff Mutt <\/p>\n
or its Mathadhipathi.\n<\/p>\n
21.            The   oral   and   documentary   evidence   produced   by   the   plaintiff   and <\/p>\n
defendants clearly and categorically establish the following factual positions <\/p>\n
factual positions :\n<\/p>\n
       (i)        The suit property belonged to the plaintiff Math;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
       (ii)       The   Meenakshiamman   idol   was   installed   by   the   32nd <\/p>\n
                  Mathadhipathi   of   the   Math   in   suit   property,   in   the   eighteenth <\/p>\n
                                              25<\/span><\/p>\n
            century.   There   is   nothing   to   show   that   installation   was   with   the <\/p>\n
            object   of   dedicating   the   premises   as   a   place   of   public   religious <\/p>\n
            worship. On the other hand the suit property was and always been <\/p>\n
            a property belonging to the plaintiff Math, where the members of <\/p>\n
            Vishwakarma   community   were   permitted   to   offer   worship   to   the <\/p>\n
            idol of Meenakshiamman.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
   (iii)    The   suit   property   is   used   regularly   to   celebrate   Guru   pooja   in <\/p>\n
            honour   of   the   founder   of   the   Math   and   the   Mathadhipathis.   The <\/p>\n
            premises was used by the Mathadhipathi of the plaintiff Math and <\/p>\n
            his disciples and followers for their stay at Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
   (iv)     The   head   of   plaintiff   Math   had   directed   the   Viswakarma <\/p>\n
            community in Komaleeswararpettai, Chennai to manage the day to <\/p>\n
            day affairs of the suit property including provision for worship of <\/p>\n
            idols in the property by constituting a Managing Committee. The <\/p>\n
            Managing   Committee   was   managing   the   Math   property   and   the <\/p>\n
            temple   therein,   recognizing   and   accepting   that   they   were   part   of <\/p>\n
            plaintiff Math.\n<\/p>\n
   (v)      In   the   year   1978,   the   defendants   and   others   in   management <\/p>\n
            attempted unsuccessfully to assert that the premises is exclusively <\/p>\n
            a   temple   belonging   to   the   Viswakarma   community   members   at <\/p>\n
            Komaleeswararpet and not the plaintiff Math.\n<\/p>\n
In view of the above findings, all the three questions raised are answered in <\/p>\n
favour of the appellant Math.\n<\/p>\n
                                                   26<\/span><\/p>\n
22.            As the management through a local committee has been in vogue for <\/p>\n
several decades, it would be appropriate if the same system is continued for <\/p>\n
the efficient management of the suit property and the place of worship. The <\/p>\n
Managing   Committee   should   consist   of   a   Chairman   nominated   by   the <\/p>\n
Mathadhipathi of plaintiff  Math and six members  (of whom three shall be <\/p>\n
nominated by plaintiff Math and the remaining three shall be elected by the <\/p>\n
Viswakarma   community   at   Komaleeswararpet,   Chennai).   The   said <\/p>\n
Managing Committee will be accountable to the plaintiff Math and act under <\/p>\n
its directions.\n<\/p>\n
23.            In view of the above, the appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree <\/p>\n
of the division bench of the High Court is set aside and the judgment and <\/p>\n
decree of the learned Single Judge decreeing the suit is restored as under:\n<\/p>\n
       (i)        The   suit   property   with   the   installed   idols   and   other   assets   is <\/p>\n
                  declared  to be  the  property  of the  plaintiff  Math. The  possession <\/p>\n
                  and   control   of   the   suit   property   with   the   place   of   worship <\/p>\n
                  (Meenakshiamman temple) vests with the plaintiff Math.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
       (ii)       Neither   the   Viswakarma   community   of  Komaleeswararpet   or   the <\/p>\n
                  Committees   of   Management   of   the   `Meenakshiamman   Temple’ <\/p>\n
                                            27<\/span><\/p>\n
           own the suit property or the place of worship therein. They were <\/p>\n
           merely acting as the representatives of the plaintiff Math.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
  (iii)    The   defendants   and   their   agents   and   representatives   shall   deliver <\/p>\n
           the entire suit property with the place of worship with the installed <\/p>\n
           idols and all movables, to the plaintiff Math forthwith.\n<\/p>\n
  (iv)     Parties to bear their respective costs. \n\n\n\n\n\n                                                     ..............................J.\n\n                                                     (R V Raveendran)\n\n\n\n\n\nNew Delhi;                                           ...............................J.\n\nSeptember 22, 2011.                                  (H L Gokhale)\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Parasamaya Kolerinatha Madam … vs P.Natesa Achari & … on 22 September, 2011 Author: R.V.Raveendran Bench: R.V. Raveendran, H.L. Gokhale 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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-186337","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nParasamaya Kolerinatha Madam ... vs P.Natesa Achari & ... on 22 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parasamaya-kolerinatha-madam-vs-p-natesa-achari-on-22-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Parasamaya Kolerinatha Madam ... vs P.Natesa Achari & ... on 22 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parasamaya-kolerinatha-madam-vs-p-natesa-achari-on-22-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-05T04:28:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"29 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parasamaya-kolerinatha-madam-vs-p-natesa-achari-on-22-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parasamaya-kolerinatha-madam-vs-p-natesa-achari-on-22-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Parasamaya Kolerinatha Madam … vs P.Natesa Achari & … on 22 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-05T04:28:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parasamaya-kolerinatha-madam-vs-p-natesa-achari-on-22-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":5684,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parasamaya-kolerinatha-madam-vs-p-natesa-achari-on-22-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parasamaya-kolerinatha-madam-vs-p-natesa-achari-on-22-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parasamaya-kolerinatha-madam-vs-p-natesa-achari-on-22-september-2011\",\"name\":\"Parasamaya Kolerinatha Madam ... vs P.Natesa Achari & ... on 22 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-05T04:28:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parasamaya-kolerinatha-madam-vs-p-natesa-achari-on-22-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parasamaya-kolerinatha-madam-vs-p-natesa-achari-on-22-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parasamaya-kolerinatha-madam-vs-p-natesa-achari-on-22-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Parasamaya Kolerinatha Madam … vs P.Natesa Achari & … on 22 September, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Parasamaya Kolerinatha Madam ... vs P.Natesa Achari & ... on 22 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parasamaya-kolerinatha-madam-vs-p-natesa-achari-on-22-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Parasamaya Kolerinatha Madam ... vs P.Natesa Achari & ... on 22 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parasamaya-kolerinatha-madam-vs-p-natesa-achari-on-22-september-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-05T04:28:31+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"29 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parasamaya-kolerinatha-madam-vs-p-natesa-achari-on-22-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parasamaya-kolerinatha-madam-vs-p-natesa-achari-on-22-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Parasamaya Kolerinatha Madam … vs P.Natesa Achari & … on 22 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-05T04:28:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parasamaya-kolerinatha-madam-vs-p-natesa-achari-on-22-september-2011"},"wordCount":5684,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parasamaya-kolerinatha-madam-vs-p-natesa-achari-on-22-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parasamaya-kolerinatha-madam-vs-p-natesa-achari-on-22-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parasamaya-kolerinatha-madam-vs-p-natesa-achari-on-22-september-2011","name":"Parasamaya Kolerinatha Madam ... vs P.Natesa Achari & ... on 22 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-05T04:28:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parasamaya-kolerinatha-madam-vs-p-natesa-achari-on-22-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parasamaya-kolerinatha-madam-vs-p-natesa-achari-on-22-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parasamaya-kolerinatha-madam-vs-p-natesa-achari-on-22-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Parasamaya Kolerinatha Madam … vs P.Natesa Achari & … on 22 September, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/186337","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=186337"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/186337\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=186337"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=186337"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=186337"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}