{"id":190478,"date":"2003-04-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-04-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-annamalai-as-trustee-vs-the-commissioner-on-16-april-2003"},"modified":"2018-01-23T08:09:21","modified_gmt":"2018-01-23T02:39:21","slug":"p-k-annamalai-as-trustee-vs-the-commissioner-on-16-april-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-annamalai-as-trustee-vs-the-commissioner-on-16-april-2003","title":{"rendered":"P.K.Annamalai (As Trustee vs The Commissioner on 16 April, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
P.K.Annamalai (As Trustee vs The Commissioner on 16 April, 2003<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDated: 16\/04\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. RAJAN\n\nS.A.No.1742 of 1992\n\nArulmighu Kumbeswarar Koil,\nKurinjipadi, by\n\n1. P.K.Annamalai (as trustee\n   and worshipper),\n   S\/o Kumarasamy Mudaliar,\n   33, Easwaran Koil Street,\n   Kurinjipadi, Cuddalore Taluk.\n\n2. Palaniandi Mudaliar,\n   S\/o Adhanamozhi Mudaliar,\n   No.57, Vachani Mudali Street,\n   Kurinjipadi, Cuddalore Taluk.\n\n3. M.Govindasamy Mudaliar,\n   S\/o Mannarsamy Mudaliar,\n   43, Vachani Mudaliar Street,\n   Kurinjipadi, Cuddalore Taluk.       ..  Appellants\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The Commissioner,\n   H.R. & C.E. Department,\n   Nungambakkam High Road,Madras.\n\n2. The Deputy Commissioner,\n   H.R. & C.E. Department,\n   Mayiladuthurai,\n   Thanjavur District.\n\n3. The Assistant Commissioner,\n   H.R. & C.E. Department,\n   Kammiampettai,\n   Thiruppapuliyur,\n   Cuddalore-2.\n\n4. S.Natarajan,\n   S\/o Sambandamurthi Asari,\n   Kammiampettai,\n   Thiruppapuliyur,\n   Cuddalore-2.                           ..  Respondents\n\n\n        Appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 9.1.1991 passed  in\nA.S.No.239 of 1989 by the District Judge, South Arcot.\n\n!For Appellant :   Mrs.   Hema Sampath\n\n^For Respondents :  Mr.S.  Sathiamurthy,\n                Government Advocate for R.1 to R.3.\n\nNo appearance for respondent No.4\n\n\n:J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
        The Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff in the suit.  2.
\nThe suit has been filed by the Trustees as well as  Worshippers  of  Arulmighu
\nKumbeswarar  Koil,  Kurinjipadi,  in  a  representative capacity; representing
\nSenguntha Mudaliar community of Eswaran Koil Street, Vachani Mudali Street and
\nEllaikal Street in Kurinjipadi. 3.  The case of the plaintiff is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
a) Arulmighu Kumbeswarar Temple at Kurinjipadi Old Street belongs to Senguntha
\nMudaliar community.  It was built about 150 years ago.   People  of  Senguntha
\nMudaliar community of the Old Street are managing the temple.  Only in case of
\nemergency, some  others  were managing the temple.  This temple was built only
\nfor the benefit of their community.  Many people  of  that  community  settled
\nproperty  in  the name of the temple for the advancement of the people of that
\ncommunity.  Though public are also worshipping in the  temple,  it  is  not  a
\nmatter of  right.    The trustees were selected only from the community of the
\nthree streets.  No other person other than Senguntha  Mudaliar  community  was
\never appointed as trustees.     b)  Earlier,  a  suit was filed by the Reddiar
\ncommunity in O.S.No.28 of 1914, against Senguntha Mudaliar community.    By  a
\njudgment  and decree dated 29.9.1917, a scheme was framed by the Court wherein
\nit was declared that the temple is a public  temple;  the  properties  of  the
\ntemple   are   under  the  control  of  Senguntha  Mudaliars  of  Old  Street,
\nKurinjipadi.  After the temple came under the supervision of H.R.  & C.E., the
\nBoard has also recognized the right of Senguntha Mudaliars and  trustees  were
\nappointed  only from and out of the Senguntha Mudaliar community people of the
\nsaid three streets.  The Board has only a  limited  right  in  the  matter  of
\nappointment of  trustees.    The  supervision of the Board extends only to the
\nauditing of the accounts.  Senguntha Mudaliar community  has  also  prescribed
\nthe right  of  becoming  trustees  of the temple.  In the year 1979, the first
\nplaintiff P.K.  Annamalai was appointed as the  trustee  for  three  years  by
\nH.R.& C.E.  Board.  It was extended on 5.7.1982 for another three years.  When
\na  portion of the land of the temple was acquired, the compensation amount was
\ndirected to be given to Arulmighu Muthumariamman temple,  Kurinjipadi  by  the
\nH.R.  & C.E.  Board.  Therefore, a suit in O.S.No.442 of 1986 was filed before
\nCuddalore D.M.C.  against H.R.  & C.E., as well as Muthumariamman temple for a
\ndeclaration  that  the  plaintiff  is entitled to get the amount; that suit is
\nstill pending.  Aggrieved by this act of the Trustee of the temple,  the  H.R.
\n& C.E.    Board  by  order  dated 12.6.1987 appointed one Rajamani as trustee.
\nThough he belonged to Senguntha Mudaliar community of one of the three streets
\nmentioned above, as he  is  a  defaulter  in  payment  of  lease  amount,  his
\nappointment is illegal.    Therefore,  as per Section 26-C of the H.R.  & C.E.
\nAct, the said Rajamani becomes disqualified to be ap pointed as  the  trustee.
\nTherefore, a suit was filed in O.S.No.887 of 1987 for permanent injunction and
\ntemporary injunction  was  granted on 6.11.1987.  Thereafter, on 10.11.1987, a
\nmeeting was convened by the people of the community and it  decided  that  the
\nfirst  trustee  of the temple, P.K.Annamalai shall be appointed as the trustee
\nand a resolution was passed to that effect.  But the H.R.  & C.E.   Board  did
\nnot accept this.   Therefore,  H.R.   & C.E.  Board appointed fourth defendant
\nwho is not a member of the Senguntha Mudaliar  community  as  Thakkar  or  fit
\nperson.  The order  passed by the H.R.  & C.E.  appointing fourth defendant as
\nThakkar is not valid.  The Board wanted to deviate from  the  convention;  the
\nvaluable right  accrued  to  the  community  cannot be taken away.  The fourth
\ndefendant approached the High Court for relief, but the  High  Court  directed
\nhim to approach the appropriate civil Court.    c) The plaintiffs pray for (1)
\na  declaration  that Arulmighu Kumbeswarar Temple is the denominational temple
\nbelonging to Senguntha Mudaliar community people of the three streets; (2) for
\na declaration that Senguntha Mudaliar community people of  the  three  streets
\nalone are entitled to be appointed as trustees; (3) for a declaration that the
\nappointment  of  the  fourth defendant as the fit person of the temple as null
\nand void; and (4) to injunct the defendants or their men from  in  any  manner
\ninterfering  with  the  management of the affairs of the Arulmighu Kumbeswarar
\ntemple by the first trustee.    4.  In the  written  statement  filed  by  the
\ndefendants, it is stated as follows:    The    suit    as    filed    in   the
\nrepresentative capacity  is  not  maintainable.    The  Board  appointed   one
\nRajamani, non-hereditary  trustee,  after P.K.  Annamalai completed the period
\nas trustee.   But  he  did  not  take  charge.    Subsequently,  he  resigned.
\nTherefore, P.K.Annamalai  is  continuing as non-hereditary trustee.  Since the
\nBoard is unable to appoint trustees in time, temporarily  it  appointed  third
\ndefendant as Thakkar as  per  Section  49  of the H.R.  & C.E.  Act.  The said
\nP.K.Annamalai was appointed twice as trustee of the temple.  Only in order  to
\nprevent the management of the temple by the Thakkar, P.K.  Annamalai has filed
\nthe suit.    It  is  not  correct  to say that the temple belongs to Senguntha
\nMudaliar community of the three streets.  There was no such plea raised in the
\nearlier suit.  The Board  has  got  a  right  to  control  and  supervise  the
\nadministration  of  the temple and also appoint non-hereditary trustees to the
\ntemple.  Therefore, the suit as framed is not maintainable.     5.   On  these
\npleas,  issues  were  framed  and  on the basis of evidence adduced, the trial
\nCourt,  (i) granted a declaration that the suit temple is a ”  denominational”
\ntemple; (ii)  found  that  Senguntha  Mudaliar  community of the three streets
\nalone have the right to be appointed as trustees;       (iii)  held  that  the
\nappointment of Thakkar was valid;       and   (iv)   rejected  the  plead  for
\ninjunction.     6.  Aggrieved by the judgment, an  appeal  was  filed  by  the
\nplaintiff.  The first Appellate Court set aside the finding of the trial Court
\nwith respect  to  the  appointment  of  Thakkar.    The  first Appellate Court
\ndeclared that the appointment of the fourth defendant as Thakkar  is  invalid.
\nBut,  it  confirmed  the  finding  of  the trial Court with respect to plea of
\ninjunction.  The first Appellate court held that the plaintiff is not entitled
\nfor the injunction restraining H.R.  & C.E.  Board from interfering  with  the
\nmanagement of the temple by the first defendant.\n<\/p>\n
        7.   Against the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court, the
\nplaintiff has preferred the Second Appeal.  The Second Appeal was admitted  on
\nthe following substantial questions of law.     (1)    Whether    the    lower
\nAppellate Court having held that the temple is a denominational  one  belonged
\nto  a particular community is right in rejecting the relief of injunction when
\nthe Commissioner constituted under the H.R.  & C.E.  Act 1959 has no right  to
\ninterfere with the management of temple by appointing trustees of its choice?
\n(2) Whether in law the Courts below are right in overlooking the fact that the
\ndispute  raised  in  the suit relates to the administration or management of a
\ndenominational temple and as such the bar under Section 108 of Act XX of  1959
\nwill not apply?         8.  Tmt.    Hema  Sampath, the learned counsel for the
\nappellant contended that the trial court has granted a  declaration  that  the
\nsuit  temple  is  a  denominational  temple  and since the respondents did not
\nprefer any appeal,  that  issue  reached  finality;  the  trial  Court  though
\ndeclared  the temple as a denominational temple, yet held that the appointment
\nof the fourth respondent as fit person was legal and valid; that was set aside
\nby the first Appellate court.  Since no appeal was filed  by  the  respondents
\nagainst that  finding  that  issue also reached finality.  Learned counsel for
\nthe appellant further  submitted  that  having  held  that  the  temple  is  a
\ndenominational  temple,  the  Courts  should  have  granted the injunction, as
\nprayed for, since H.R.  & C.E.  Board has no power whatsoever to regulate  the
\naffairs  of  any  denominational  temple; it can only supervise, in accordance
\nwith law.  In short, the contention  of  the  learned  counsel  is  that  with
\nrespect to denominational  temple,  H.R.   & C.E.  has no authority to appoint
\nthe trustee or to pass any direction as to how a person has to be  recommended
\nby  the  members  of  the  denomination  for appointment as the trustee of the
\ntemple; the Board has no control in such matters; the only right of the  Board
\nis  to  appoint  the persons recommended by the members of the denomination as
\ntrustees.\n<\/p>\n
        9.  In support of her contention, the learned counsel relied upon  the
\ndecision of the Supreme  Court  in  COMMISSIONER,  H.R.& E.  v.  L.T.  SWAMIAR
\n(A.I.R.  1954 S.C.  282 and also upon the following decisions:\n<\/p>\n
                1) KRISHNA CHETTIAR v.  RAMAN CHETTIAR<\/a> (1962    (I)     M.L.J.\n385     2) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, H.R.    &  C.E.    BOARD  v.   SIDHDHIVINAYAGA\nMUDALIAR<\/a> (1971 (1) M.L.J.  422  3) CHINA BOYAN v.  COMMISSIONER FOR  H.R.    &\nC.E.  (1975 (II)) M.L.J.  29 4  4) SUBRAMANIA  PILLAI  v.    TRUSTEES,  TEMPLE\nGROUP (1981 (ii) M.L.J.  77(D.B)        5) SRI KANYAKA PARAMESWARI ANNA SATRAM\n<\/pre>\n
COMMITTEE v.  COMMR.,  HINDU  RELIGIOUS  &  CHARITABLE  ENDOWMENTS  DEPARTMENT
\n((1999) 7 SUPREME COURT CASES 666.\n<\/p>\n
        10.  In Kanyaka Parameswari case, H.R.& C.E.  Board appointed a person
\nas   the   Executive  Officer  of  a  temple;  that  temple  was  declared  as
\ndenominational temple.  But the challenge to the appointment of the  Executive
\nOfficer and  the  injunction  prayed  for was rejected.  A Single Judge of the
\nAndhra Pradesh High Court held that the power of the functionaries  under  the
\nAct  to  suspend  a  trustee  and  appoint a fit person under Section 26 or to
\nappoint an executive officer under Section 2 7 should be  read  down  to  mean
\nthat  the  power  so  exercised  should  not  amount  to  total  extinction or
\ndestruction  altogether  of  the  right  of  the  religious  denomination   to
\nadminister the property and vest it in any other authority; and therefore, the
\nclaim  i  n  the suit that the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the
\ninstitution and that the Board has no jurisdiction  to  appoint  an  executive
\nofficer was  rejected  and  hence  the  prayer  was dismissed.  On appeal, the
\nDivision  Bench  agreed  with  the  conclusion  that  the  institution  is   a
\ndenominational institution, but it was of the view that the appointment of the
\nExecutive  Officer  was  for the better management of the institution and if a
\nperson from the same community is appointed as  an  Executive  Officer,  there
\ncannot be  any  prejudice  to  the  appellant.    When the matter was taken to
\nSupreme Court, the Supreme court has observed as follows:       ” It cannot be
\ndenied that among the religious institutions denominational institutions stand
\non a different footing and enjoy special protection under Article  26  of  the
\nConstitution.   Therefore,  while considering the challenge to the appointment
\nof an executive officer, it is essential to bear in mind the protection  given
\nunder  Article  26  of  the  Constitution,  which the High Court failed to do.
\nWhile accepting the finding, which has not been challenged by the  respondents
\nthat  the  appellant  institution is a denominational one, the High Court will
\ndecide the legality of the appointment of the executive  officer  particularly
\nin  the  light  of Article 26 of the Constitution and the earlier decisions of
\nthe Supreme court.  ” and remanded the case.    (b)  The  case  in  SUBRAMANIA
\nPILLAI v.   TRUSTEES,  TEMPLE  GROUP (1981 ( ii) M.L.J.  77(D.B) is a decision
\nwith respect to appointment of hereditary trustees.     (c) In CHINA BOYAN  v.
\nCOMMISSIONER FOR H.R.   &  C.E.    (1975 (II) M.L.J.  294, this Court has held
\nthat,<\/p>\n
        ” A law which takes away the right of administration from the hands of
\nthe religious denomination altogether and vests  it  in  any  other  authority
\nwould amount to a violation of the right guaranteed under Article 26.  ”\n<\/p>\n
        (d) In the  case  of  DEPUTY  COMMISSIONER,  H.R.    &  C.E.  BOARD v.
\nSIDHDHIVINAYAGA MUDALIAR<\/a> (1971) (1) M.L.J.  422,, a  Division  Bench  of  this
\nCourt  has held that a prescriptive title as hereditary trustees of the temple
\ncan be acquired.        (e) The  decision  in  KRISHNA  CHETTIAR  v.     RAMAN
\nCHETTIAR<\/a> (1962  (I) M.L.J.  385 is with respect to the power of area committee
\nunder Section 44 of the Act.    (f) In the case, COMMISSIONER, H.R.&  E.    v.
\nL.T.  SWAMIAR (A.I.R.    1954  S.C.  282), seven Judges Bench of Supreme Court
\nhas held that,  “…under Article 26(d), it is  the  fundamental  right  of  a
\nreligious  denomination  or its representative to administer its properties in
\naccordance with  law;  and  the  law,  therefore,  must  leave  the  right  of
\nadministration   to   the   religious  denomination  itself  subject  to  such
\nrestrictions and regulations as it might choose to impose.  A law which  takes
\naway  the  right  of administration from the hands of a religious denomination
\naltogether and vests it in any other authority would amount to a violation  of
\nthe right guaranteed under cl.(d) of Article 26 .  ”\n<\/p>\n
From  the above decisions, it is clear that, the right conferred under Article
\n26 is available to every religious denomination  or  any  section  thereof  to
\nestablish and maintain institution for religious and charitable purpose and to
\nmaintain its own affairs in matters of religion.        11.     The    phrase,
\n“establish and maintain” cannot be separated.  It shall be read conjunctively.
\nOnly when  a  religious  denomination  or  a  section  thereof  establishes  a
\nreligious  institution, it gets the right to manage its own affairs in matters
\nof religion with respect to that institution.  This principle  has  been  laid
\ndown by  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  case  of AZEEZ BASHA v.  Union of India
\n(A.I.R.<\/a>  1968, Supreme Court, 662).  Therefore, the prayer  of  the  plaintiff
\nthat  the  temple  is  a  denominational  temple,  can  be decreed only if the
\nplaintiff proves that they established the religious institution and that they
\nare a part of a religious denomination and that  they  are  administering  the
\nsame continuously.\n<\/p>\n
        12.   The  plaintiff  has filed and relied upon the judgment in Ex.A.3
\nwhich shows that a scheme has been framed by a decree in O.S.28 of 191  4,  as
\nearly as 1917 itself; The relevant provisions of the scheme are as follows: ”
\nIt  is  decreed  that the scheme drafted and put into Court by the parties and
\napproved by the Court with the modifications above set forth with reference to
\nClauses 25 and 26 of the draft scheme be adopted for the convenient management
\nof the plaint Mariamman temple and the Kubeswaraswami temple in the village of
\nKurunjipadikuppam, Cuddalore Taluk, “TERMS OF THE DRAFT SCHEME  (1)  The  suit
\ntemple, i.e., the Mariammal temple and the Kumbeswaraswami temple, be declared
\nto  be  a public religious trust, i.e., all members of the public are entitled
\nto worship therein; but the trusteeship for the control and management of  the
\nsaid temple and all their properties movable and immovable now in existence or
\nthat may be acquired in future shall vest solely in the Sengundar community of
\nPazhantheru of Kurunjipadi.\n<\/p>\n
        (19)  On  the  occurrence  of  a vacancy in the Board caused by death,
\nremoval, resignation, or otherwise, the community shall, at a general meeting,
\nfill up the vacancy by election.  If any vacancy remains unfilled for  over  3
\nmonths, the eldest members of the households entitled to vote for the purpose,
\nmay after giving a fortnight’s notice to the members of the Board, fill up the
\nvacancy by  election.  If any seat on the Board remains vacant for more than 6
\nmonths, this Court may on its own motion or on  the  application  of  any  ten
\ninterested  in the trust fill up the vacancy by appointing a member from among
\nthe members of the Pazhantheru Sengundars.\n<\/p>\n
……………………………………….  (23) The Board may  from  time
\nto  time  frame  new  rules  or  modify  the  existing  rules in regard to the
\nmanagement of the suit temples  subject  to  the  approval  of  the  Sengundar
\ncommunity of  Pazhantheru  and  of  this Court.  The Court also may of its own
\nmotion or on the application of any one interested in the  trust  frame  rules
\nfor  the  purpose  of management of the suit temples, without prejudice to the
\nrights of the Panzhantheru Chengundar community and not inconsistent with  the
\ngeneral principles of this scheme.  ”\n<\/p>\n
From  this,  it is clear that the Court as early as 1917 has declared that the
\nsuit temple is a “public temple.” It is also clarified that  “all  the  public
\nhas  the  right  to worship in the temple.” Where the public has a “right” “to
\nworship” in a temple without any restriction whatsoever, that temple cannot be
\na denominational temple as held by the Supreme  court  in  SHIRUR  MUTT  case.
\nTherefore,  the  decree  of  declaration  by  the  trial  Court  that  it is a
\ndenominational temple does not appear to be correct.    13.  It is  true  that
\nno appeal has been filed by the department against that declaration.  Normally
\nthis  Court  will not interfere in such finding, when no appeal was preferred.
\nBut, inasmuch as, earlier, a decree has been passed by a competent  Court  and
\nin  that  decree,  the suit temple has been declared as a “public temple” that
\ncannot be ignored by this Court, where another decree contrary to the  earlier
\ndecree is  passed.  In the 1917 decree, the Court has held that all members of
\nthe public are entitled to worship in the suit temple.   The  only  difference
\nbetween  the denominational temple and nondenominational temple is that in the
\nnon-denominational temple, the entire public shall have the right  to  worship
\nwithout  any restriction, whereas in the denominational temple, during some of
\nthe functions and poojas, the participation can  be  restricted  only  to  the
\nmembers of  that denomination.  Therefore, when all members of the public have
\nright to worship in the temple without any restriction,  then  such  a  temple
\ncannot be held to be the denominational temple. 14.   A  scheme  decree can be
\nmodified by the Court.  There is also a provision in the 1917  decree  to  the
\neffect  that  alterations  of the scheme can be done only with the approval of
\nthe Court.  In this case, instead of seeking for modification of the scheme, a
\nfresh suit has been filed.  Under  such  circumstances,  a  decree  cannot  be
\ngranted by the civil Court contrary to the scheme already framed by the Court.
\nA decree  passed in a suit under Section 92 C.P.C.  is binding not only on the
\nTrust and the Trustees, but also on all the worshippers of the temples.   When
\na  suit  is  filed  in a representative capacity, all the persons who have the
\nsame interest are represented in the suit and  therefore,  when  a  decree  is
\npassed  in  such a suit, it acts as res judicata and prevents the parties from
\nre-agitating the matter again.  This principle has been laid down by the Privy
\nCouncil and was followed by this Court as well as  the  Supreme  Court.    The
\nSupreme Court in  the case RAJE ANANDRAO v.  SHAMRAO AND OTHERS (A.I.R.<\/a>  1961,
\nS.C.  1206)     observed as follows:    ”  A  suit  under  Section  92  is   a
\nrepresentative  suit  and  the  decision  therein  binds  not only the parties
\nthereto, but all those who are interested in the trust.”\n<\/p>\n
Further, the Supreme Court reiterated the same  principle  in  AHMAD  ADAM  v.
\nM.E.  MAKHRI (A.I.R.  1964, S.C.  107), wherein it is held as follows:  ”
\nWhere a representative suit is brought under Section 92 and a decree is passed
\nin such a suit, law assumes that all persons who have the same interest as the
\nplaintiffs  in the representative suit were represented by the said plaintiffs
\nand, therefore, are constructively barred by res judicata from reagitating the
\nmatters directly and substantially in issue in the said suit.   A      similar
\nresult  follows if a suit is either brought or defended under Order 1, Rule 8.
\nIn that case, persons either suing or defending an action are doing  so  in  a
\nrepresentative  character,  and so, the decree passed in such a suit binds all
\nthose whose interests were represented either by  the  plaintiffs  or  by  the
\ndefendants.  ”  15.   Therefore,  the  present suit is barred by res judicata.
\nHence, the finding that the suit temple is denominational temple, contrary  to
\nthe  decree  in  1917 is not legal and valid and it is liable to be set aside.
\nFurther, in the case on hand, in the suit O.S.28 of 1914, it has been declared
\nthat the the temple belongs to Senguntha community people of Pazhantheru  (Old
\nStreet) of  Kurinjipadi.  The declaratory decree is a judgment in rem; that is
\nbinding on all people whether parties to the suit  or  not.    Therefore,  the
\nprayer  in the present suit that the temple belong to the people of the “three
\nstreets” is barred as it is also contrary  to  the  decree.    Therefore,  the
\ndeclaration  granted  by  the trial Court that the temple belongs to Senguntha
\nMudaliars of the three streets, viz.,  Eswaran  Koil  Street,  Vachani  Mudali
\nStreet  and Ellaikal Street in Kurinjipadi and approved by the first Appellate
\nCourt, is contrary to the earlier decree.   The  issue  of  ownership  of  the
\ntemple  cannot be re-opened as the earlier decree acts as res judicata against
\nthe plaintiffs who are the descendants of the parties  to  the  earlier  suit.
\nTherefore,  the  finding  of  the  trial  Court  that  it belongs to Senguntha
\nMudaliar of the three streets is not legal and valid.  Hence that  finding  of
\nthe  trial Court as confirmed by the first Appellate Court is also not legally
\nsustainable.    16.  This Court though hears the second appeal  filed  by  the
\nappellant and the  H.R.   & C.E.  Department has not preferred any appeal, yet
\nthis Court can exercise the revisional powers of Court, under Article 22 7  of
\nthe Constitution of India.  When the trial Court has granted a decree which is
\nprima  facie  illegal  though  such  a finding is not challenged by any party,
\nstill the High Court can and shall  when  it  is  brought  to  its  knowledge,
\nexercise the power under Article 227 of the Constitution read with Section 115
\nof the  Code of Civil Procedure.  This power can also be exercised suo motu by
\nthe High Court.  Therefore, by exercising the power conferred upon this Court,
\nunder Section 115 C.P.C.  and Article 227 of the Constitution, the findings of
\nthe trial Court,        (1) that the suit temple  belongs  to  the  people  of
\nSenguntha  Mudaliar community of the three streets, viz., Eswaran Koil Street,
\nVachani Mudali Street and Ellaikal Street in Kurinjipadi; and   (2)  that  the
\nsuit  temple  is  a denominational temple; as confirmed by the first Appellate
\ncourt are set aside.    17.  At the same time, as  found  already,  office  of
\nTrustee of  a  temple  can  be  acquired  by  prescription.  From the evidence
\navailable in this case, it is seen that Senguntha Mudaliar  community  of  the
\nthree  streets  have  acquired  right  to  be  appointed  as  the  Trustee  by
\nprescription.  Therefore, that right cannot be altered, that is s Trustees can
\nbe appointed by H.R.  & C.E.  only from among the Senguntha Mudaliar community
\nof the three streets.  It cannot appoint any other person other than a  person
\nfrom the Senguntha Mudaliar community of the three seats.       18.        The
\nfourth prayer in the suit is, that the H.R.& C.E.  Board shall  be  restrained
\nfrom  interfering  with  the  management of the temple by the first appellant,
\nviz., P.K.Annamalai.  That is, the prayer in this suit is to injunct the  H.R.
\n& C.E.    Board  from  in any way interfering with the management by the first
\nplaintiff of the properties of the temple.      19.  Appointment of trustee is
\na power conferred under H.R.& C.E.  Act.  Admittedly, the first plaintiff  was
\nappointed as the nonhereditary  trustee  by  the  H.R.  & C.E.  Board.  Such a
\nnon-hereditary trustee cannot claim that he shall continue to be a trustee for
\never.  This prayer seeks for a blanket injunction not to  interfere  with  the
\nmanagement  by  the  first plaintiff of the temple’s property for all times to
\ncome.  Such a prayer cannot be granted by any Court.  As long as the  trustees
\nare  appointed  from  and out of the Senguntha Mudaliar community of the three
\nstreets referred above, there can be no grievance for the plaintiffs.   20.
\nFurther, the  present  suit  has  been  filed  in  a  representative  capacity
\nrepresenting people of the community residing in the three streets.  A suit in
\na  representative  capacity  is  filed  representing  all  the  people of that
\ncommunity; Therefore, the relief prayed for can only be for the benefit of the
\ncommunity, as a whole; therefore, a relief in favour of one single  individual
\nof that  community  cannot be prayed for.  Inasmuch as this is a suit filed in
\nrepresentative capacity in the interests of the entire community of  Senguntha
\nMudaliars  of  the  three  streets,  the  fourth  prayer, which is not for the
\nbenefit of the entire community, but only for one individual cannot be  prayed
\nfor;  Such  a  prayer  cannot  be  sought  for  in  the  representative  suit.
\nTherefore, that prayer cannot be granted by the Courts.  Both the trial  Court
\nand the first Appellate Court have rightly negatived that prayer.  There is no
\nreason to interfere with that finding.  Hence, that finding is confirmed. 21.
\nFor  the  reasons  stated  above,  the  decree  passed by the Courts below are
\nmodified, as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        (1) The declaration that the suit temple is a denominational temple is
\nset aside.      (2) The decree that  the  suit  temple  belong  to  people  of
\nSenguntha Mudaliar of three streets is set aside.       (3)  The decree passed
\nin O.S.28 of 1914 that the temple  belong  to  people  of  Senguntha  Mudaliar
\ncommunity of Pazhantheru (Old Street) is confirmed.     (4)   The  H.R.&  C.E.
\ncan appoint only the people of  Senguntha  Mudaliar  community  of  the  three
\nstreets as trustees of the temple is confirmed. 22.  In the result, the second
\nappeal is disposed of accordingly.  No costs.  The substantial question of law
\nis answered against the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
Index:  yes
\nWeb Site:  Yes<\/p>\n
vs<\/p>\n
To:\n<\/p>\n
1.  The  Commissioner,  H.R.    &  C.E.    Department,\nNungambakkam High Road,Madras.\n\n2.  The Deputy  Commissioner,  H.R.    &  C.E.    Department,\nMayiladuthurai, Thanjavur District.\n\n3.  The Assistant  Commissioner,  H.R.    &  C.E.   Department,\nKammiampettai, Thiruppapuliyur, Cuddalore-2.\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court P.K.Annamalai (As Trustee vs The Commissioner on 16 April, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 16\/04\/2003 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. RAJAN S.A.No.1742 of 1992 Arulmighu Kumbeswarar Koil, Kurinjipadi, by 1. P.K.Annamalai (as trustee and worshipper), S\/o Kumarasamy Mudaliar, 33, Easwaran Koil Street, Kurinjipadi, Cuddalore Taluk. 2. […]<\/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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-190478","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nP.K.Annamalai (As Trustee vs The Commissioner on 16 April, 2003 - 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\/p-k-annamalai-as-trustee-vs-the-commissioner-on-16-april-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.K.Annamalai (As Trustee vs The Commissioner on 16 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-annamalai-as-trustee-vs-the-commissioner-on-16-april-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-04-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-23T02:39:21+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=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-annamalai-as-trustee-vs-the-commissioner-on-16-april-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-annamalai-as-trustee-vs-the-commissioner-on-16-april-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.K.Annamalai (As Trustee vs The Commissioner on 16 April, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-04-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-23T02:39:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-annamalai-as-trustee-vs-the-commissioner-on-16-april-2003\"},\"wordCount\":4260,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-annamalai-as-trustee-vs-the-commissioner-on-16-april-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-annamalai-as-trustee-vs-the-commissioner-on-16-april-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-annamalai-as-trustee-vs-the-commissioner-on-16-april-2003\",\"name\":\"P.K.Annamalai (As Trustee vs The Commissioner on 16 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-04-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-23T02:39:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-annamalai-as-trustee-vs-the-commissioner-on-16-april-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-annamalai-as-trustee-vs-the-commissioner-on-16-april-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-annamalai-as-trustee-vs-the-commissioner-on-16-april-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.K.Annamalai (As Trustee vs The Commissioner on 16 April, 2003\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"P.K.Annamalai (As Trustee vs The Commissioner on 16 April, 2003 - 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\/p-k-annamalai-as-trustee-vs-the-commissioner-on-16-april-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.K.Annamalai (As Trustee vs The Commissioner on 16 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-annamalai-as-trustee-vs-the-commissioner-on-16-april-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-04-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-23T02:39:21+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":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-annamalai-as-trustee-vs-the-commissioner-on-16-april-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-annamalai-as-trustee-vs-the-commissioner-on-16-april-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.K.Annamalai (As Trustee vs The Commissioner on 16 April, 2003","datePublished":"2003-04-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-23T02:39:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-annamalai-as-trustee-vs-the-commissioner-on-16-april-2003"},"wordCount":4260,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-annamalai-as-trustee-vs-the-commissioner-on-16-april-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-annamalai-as-trustee-vs-the-commissioner-on-16-april-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-annamalai-as-trustee-vs-the-commissioner-on-16-april-2003","name":"P.K.Annamalai (As Trustee vs The Commissioner on 16 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-04-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-23T02:39:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-annamalai-as-trustee-vs-the-commissioner-on-16-april-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-annamalai-as-trustee-vs-the-commissioner-on-16-april-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-annamalai-as-trustee-vs-the-commissioner-on-16-april-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.K.Annamalai (As Trustee vs The Commissioner on 16 April, 2003"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/190478","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=190478"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/190478\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=190478"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=190478"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=190478"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}