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 D G M E N T

R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J.

The appellant Math was the plaintiff in a suit (C.S.No.2/1983) filed  

against the respondents 1 and 2 (defendants 1 and 2) and two others on the  

file of the Madras High Court. The appellant math situated in Tirunelveli,  

claims  to  be  the  owner  of  property  bearing  No.16,  Chandrabanu  Street,  

Komaleeswararpet  also  described  as  Komaleeswaranpettai,  Chennai  

(described  in  the  first  schedule  to  the  plaint)  known  as  Parasamaya  

1

Kolerinatha  Madam  and  several  idols  including  those  of  Goddess  

Meenakshi, Lord Vigneshwara, Lord Murugan installed therein (described in  

the second schedule to the plaint), together referred to as the ‘suit property’.

2. The plaint averments in brief are: The appellant is a Math established  

several  centuries  ago  at  Tirunelveli  by  Swami  Anavaratha  Soundaraja  

Perumal.  The  Mathadhipathi  of  the  Math  is  elected  for  life  by  the  

Viswakarma community.  In the year 1922, a suit (OS No.58/1922 as the file  

of the Sub-court, Tirunelveli) was filed for framing a scheme for regulating  

the succession and administration of the plaintiff Math and its properties. In  

the  said  suit,  a  scheme  was  framed  by  order  dated  2.5.1925.  The  suit  

property was one of the properties shown as vested in the Math in the final  

decree in the said scheme suit. The suit property was owned by the plaintiff  

Math for several centuries and the Head of the Math would stay there during  

his  visit  to the  city.  His  disciples  were  regularly  using the  premises  and  

staying therein. The Math premises were being managed by a nominee of the  

Math.  The idol of Goddess Meenakshi  and the statue of the Head of the  

Math with his Padukas were installed by the Math in the suit property in the  

eighteenth century and were worshipped by the disciples of the Math and  

other devotees. As the Headquarters of the Math was situated at the far-away  

2

Tirunelveli,  the  Mathadhipathi  had entrusted the management  of  the said  

Math  property  to  nominated  Agent/s  who  were  the  local  elders  of  the  

Viswakarma  community.  When  a  new  Mathadhipathi  was  installed  on  

17.8.1981, he sent  his  agent  to routinely enquire about the affairs  of  the  

Math property in Chennai and learnt that the persons earlier managing the  

property had handed over the management to defendants 1 and 2. When the  

Mathadhipathi visited Chennai in 1982 and stayed in the suit property. One  

R. Venugopal Achari who was appointed to look after the suit property in  

the  year  1963,  informed  the  Mathadhipathi  that  he  had  handed  over  

management  to  Kanagasabapathy  Achary  who  in  turn  handed  over  

management  to  defendants.  When  the  Mathadhipathi  sent  word  to  

defendants to come and discuss the affairs of the Math, they did not turn up,  

but  the  community  people  spoke  to  the  Mathadipathi  and  made  several  

complaints about the irregular and ineffective management by defendants 1  

and 2. Further inquiries revealed that defendants 1 and 2 were attempting to  

claim that  the  suit  property  with  the  Meenakshiamman  idol  as  a  temple  

independent of the Math, managed by the local Viswakarma community and  

had arranged for Kumbabishekam without the knowledge and consent of the  

Mathadhipathi. In view of the above, the plaintiff Math filed the said suit  

and sought  a  declaration  of  title  to  the  suit  property  (with  the  idols  and  

3

movables therein) and delivery thereof.

3. Defendants  1  and 2 resisted  the  suit.  They contended that  the  suit  

property  (describing  it  as  the  Meenakshiamman  temple)  was  a  

denominational  temple  that  has  been  in  existence  for  the  benefit  of  the  

members  of  the  Viswakarma  community  living  in  Komaleeswararpet  in  

Chennai. The suit property was a temple and the Math did not ‘exist’ in the  

suit property. The plaintiff Math had no connection with the suit property.  

Neither the final decree nor the scheme in the scheme suit (O.S.No.58 of  

1922)  relating  to  the  plaintiff  Mutt  was  binding  on  the  members  of  the  

community living in Komaleeswararpet in Chennai as they were not parties  

to the scheme suit. Though the temple in Komaleeswararpet was dedicated  

to  Goddess  Meenakshiamman,  as  Parasamaya  Kolerinatha  Swami  was  a  

great saint and Guru of Viswakarma community, the said temple was also  

called by the name of the said Swami, but the plaintiff Math has nothing to  

do with the suit property.  The said denominational temple was under the  

management of the members of the Viswakarma community through their  

elected  representatives.  In  the  beginning  of  the  twentieth  century,  one  

Arumuga Achary was managing the affairs of the temple. Later one C. V.  

Raju  Achary  was  the  trustee  till  1938.  From  1938,  Adhimoola  Achary  

4

functioned  as  a  Trustee  with  the  assistance  of  a  committee  of  members.  

Kanagasabai  Achari  became  the  Trustee  in  1963  and  in  1969,  first  and  

second defendants along with one more person were elected as trustees and  

they were in management. The idols and statues in the temple were installed  

by the members of the Viswakarma community of Komaleeswararpet and  

not by the plaintiff Math. The community performed the Kumbhabhishekam  

of  the  temple  on  21.1.1983.  They  filed  a  petition  in  the  office  of  the  

Commissioner  for  Religious  and  Charitable  Endowments  for  framing  a  

scheme for the said temple by impleading the plaintiff math as a respondent.  

The property did not belong to the Math and that for more than a century,  

the  property  has  been  under  the  absolute  control  of  the  members  of  the  

Viswakarma community of Komaleeswararpet. As the suit property was a  

temple and not a Math as defined under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious  

and  Charitable  Endowments  Act,  1959  (for  short  ‘the  Act’)  and  as  the  

plaintiff  Math  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  property,  the  suit  was  not  

maintainable and was liable to be dismissed.

4.  The High Court framed four issues. The main issue was whether the  

plaintiff Math was entitled to the ownership of the suit property and if so  

whether  it  was  entitled  to  recover  possession.  Both  sides  led  oral  and  

5

documentary  evidence.  After  detailed  consideration  of  the  several  

documents exhibited by the parties and the oral evidence, the learned Single  

Judge who tried the suit,  decreed the suit  by judgment and decree  dated  

20.4.1993. He held that there was abundant evidence to show that the suit  

property  belonged  to  the  plaintiff  Math  and  it  was  not  the  property  of  

Viswakarma community  residing  at  Komaleeswararpet,  Chennai.  He also  

accepted the case of the plaintiff Math that the Thirty Second Head of the  

plaintiff Math had installed the idol of the Goddess Meenakshi more than  

two centuries ago. The learned Single Judge also referred to the series of  

documents  produced  by  the  defendants  themselves  which  stated  that  

Meenakshiamman temple was situated in Parasamaya Kolerinatha Swami  

Math.  The  learned  Single  Judge  held  that  merely  because  idols  were  

installed and worshipped in a Math premises, the property will not cease to  

be  a  Math  nor  will  it  become  a  place  of  public  religious  worship.  

Consequently the learned Single Judge decreed the suit granting declaration  

of  title  and  directing  delivery  of  possession  of  the  suit  property  to  the  

plaintiff Math.

5. Feeling aggrieved, defendants 1 and 2 filed an intra-court appeal. A  

Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  allowed  the  said  appeal  (OSA  

6

No.29/1994)  by  the  impugned  judgment  dated  29.4.1999.  The  division  

bench held that the oral and documentary evidence established the existence  

of  Meenakshiamman  temple  in  the  suit  property,  possessing  the  

characteristics  of  a  temple.  The  Managing  Committee  elected  from  

Viswakarma  community  was  managing  the  said  temple,  attending  to  its  

repairs,  paying  municipal  taxes  and conducting  festivals.  It  held  that  the  

characteristics of a Math were absent and the plaintiff Math had failed to  

prove that the affairs of the Math alone were carried on in the premises; and  

as the goddess Meenakshiamman was being worshipped by the public and  

temple festivals were being regularly conducted, the finding of the learned  

Single Judge that the installation of idol of Meenakshi did not extinguish the  

rights of the Math, was not sustainable.  The division bench held the suit  

property  to  be  a  ‘temple’  and consequently  dismissed  the  suit.  The  said  

judgment and decree is challenged in this appeal by special leave.

6. On the contentions urged three questions arise for consideration :  

(i) Whether the suit property belongs to the Plaintiff Math?  

(ii) Whether  the  Division  Bench  ignored  the  material  documents  exhibited  by  plaintiffs  and  defendants  in  holding  that  the  suit  property did not belong to the plaintiff Math?

7

(iii) Whether the property of the Math ceased to belong to the Math, as  idols  were  installed  therein  are  worshipped  by  the  members  of  Viswakarma community, thereby converting it to a temple.   

7. As  all  these  questions  are  interconnected,  we  will  consider  them  

together. We may at first refer to the definitions of the words ‘Math’ and  

‘Temple’ in the Act.  Section 6(13) of the Act defines ‘Math’ thus :

“Math means a Hindu religious institution with properties attached thereto  and presided over by a person, the succession to whose office devolves in  accordance  with  the  direction  of  the  founder  of  the  institution  or  is  regulated by usage and (i) whose duty it is to engage himself in imparting  religious instruction or rendering spiritual service; or (ii) who exercises or  claims to exercise spiritual headship over a body of disciples; and includes  places  of religious worship  or instruction which are appurtenant  to the  institution. xxx       xxx”

Section 6(20) of the said Act defines the term “temple” as

“Temple means a place by whatever designation known used as a place of  public religious worship, and dedicated to, or for the benefit of, or used as  of right by, the Hindu community or of any section thereof, as a place of  public religious worship.   xxx       xxx”

8. The distinction between maths and temples, stated in several judicial  

pronouncement has found statutory recognition in the aforesaid definitions.  

There are two necessary ingredients for a structure or place to be described  

as a  temple under the  Act.  First  is  its  use as  a  place of  public  religious  

worship. Second is dedication of the structure or place to, or for the benefit  

of, or use as of right by, the Hindu community or a section thereof, as a  

8

place of public religious worship. The mere fact that members of the public  

are allowed to worship at  a place, will  not make it  a public temple. The  

Hindu  sentiments  and  the  tenets  of  Hinduism  do  not  normally  exclude  

worshippers from a place of worship, even when it is private or part of a  

Math. Therefore, the crucial test is not whether the members of the public  

are permitted to worship, but whether the worship by the members of the  

public  is  as  of  right  by the  Hindu community  or  any section thereof,  or  

whether a place has been dedicated a place of public religious worship. [See  

: the decision of the Privy Council in  Mundacheri Koman vs. Atchuthan -  

ILR 58 Mad. 91, the decisions of the Madras High Court in Madras Hindu  

Religious  Endowments  Board  vs.  Deivanai  Ammal -  1953  (2)  MLJ 688;  

Bodendraswami Mutt vs. The President of the Board of Commissioners for   

Hindu Religious Endowments - 1955 (1) MLJ 60, and  The Commissioner,   

Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment (Admn.) Department vs. T.A.T.   

Srimath Gnaniar Madalayam - 2003 (1) MLJ 726].  

9. In  Goswami Shri Mahalaxmi Vahuji vs. Shah Ranchhoddas Kalidas  

(Dead)  &  Ors. -  AIR  1970  SC  2025  and  T.D.  Gopalan  vs.  The  

Commissioner of Hindu Religions and Charitable Endowments,  Madras -  

AIR 1972 SC 1716, this Court held that the origin of the temple, the manner  

9

in which the affairs are managed, the gifts received by it, the rights exercised  

by  devotees  in  regard  to  worship  therein  and  the  consciousness  of  the  

devotees themselves as to the character of the temple, are the factors which  

go to show whether a temple is a public temple or a private temple. It is also  

well-settled that mere installation and consecration of idols in a place will  

not make it a place of public religious worship. Where the evidence shows  

that  the  disputed  property  retained  the  identity  as  a  Math  and  where  

Gurupoojas  (functions  celebrating/important  days  associated  with  the  

founder or head of the math) are performed regularly, it will not lose the  

characteristic of a Math and become a temple, merely because idols have  

been installed and members of a section of Hindu community offer worship.  

In fact, this fact is now statutorily recognized in the definition of Math in  

section 6(13) of the Act which makes it clear that a Math includes any place  

of religious worship which is appurtenant to the institution of a Math.

10. This  Court  in  Radhakanta  Deb  vs.  The  Commissioner  of  Hindu  

Religious  Endowments,  Orissa [AIR  1981  SC  798]  on  a  conspectus  of  

earlier  authorities,  laid  down  the  following  tests  to  provide  sufficient  

guidelines to determine on the facts of each case, whether an endowment is  

of a private or a public nature :

10

“Thus, on a conspectus of the authorities mentioned above, the following  tests may be laid down as providing sufficient guidelines to determine on  the facts of each case whether an endowment is of a private or of a public  nature :

(1) Where  the  origin  of  the  endowment  cannot  be  ascertained,  the  question whether the user of the temple by member of the public is as  of right;

(2) The fact that the control and management vests either in a large body  of persons or in the members of the public and the founder does not  retain  any  control  over  the  management.  Allied  to  this  may  be  a  circumstance where the evidence shows that there is provision for a  scheme to be framed by associating the members  of the public at  large;

(3) Where,  however,  a document is  available to prove the nature and  origin of the endowment and the recitals of the document show that   the  control  and  management  of  the  temple  is  retained  with  the  founder  or  his  descendants,  and  that  extensive  properties  are   dedicated for the purpose of the maintenance of the temple belonging   to the founder himself, this will be a conclusive proof to show that the   endowment was of a private nature;  

(4) Where the evidence shows that the founder of the endowment did not  make any stipulation for offerings or contributions to be made by  members  of  the  public  to  the  temple,  this  would  be  an important  intrinsic  circumstance  to  indicate  the  private  nature  of  the  endowment.”

(emphasis supplied)

11. We may also in this context refer to one of the earliest judgments of  

the Madras High Court. In Thambu Chetti Subraya Chetti vs. A.T. Arundel -  

ILR 6 (1883)  Mad.  287.  The question  considered therein  was  whether  a  

building known as the Dharma Sivachari Mattam could be considered to be  

a place of public worship, as idols were installed in the said Math premises,  

11

so  that  exemption  from  payment  of  municipal  tax  could  be  availed.  A  

Division Bench of the Madras High Court held :

“The original signification of the term Math or Matha is a building or set  of buildings in which Hindu religious mendicants reside under a superior,  who is called a Mahant. This spiritual superior is regarded with veneration  by the members of the sect, and is installed with some ceremony, and not  infrequently receives an honorific title. Although a place of worship is not   a necessary part of a Math, such a place is, as may be expected, often   found in such institutions, and, though intended primarily for the use of   the  inmates,  the  public  may be admitted  to  it,  and so this  part  of  the   building  may  become  a  place  of  religious  worship.  A  Hindu  Math  somewhat resembles a Catholic Monastery. From the circumstance that a  portion of it is not infrequently devoted to worship, and that the public  may  be  admitted  to  it,  the  term  Math  has  acquired  a  secondary  signification as a small temple.

Taking the whole of the facts mentioned in the judgment, we see reason to  think  that  the  institution  was  a  Math  in  the  original  rather  than  the  secondary sense of that term………….when the Mattam is in part of in  whole used for purposes other  than those of public worship,  it  will  be  liable to taxation.”

(emphasis supplied)

12. Therefore, the fact that there are some idols installed in a Math and  

members of the public offer worship to such idol will not make it a place of  

public religious worship, that is, a temple, if the other ingredients of a math  

exist or if it is established to be a premises belonging to a math and used by  

the math for its purposes.  If the property in its origin was a math property, it  

cannot be treated as a temple merely because the math had installed idols  

and permitted worship by the members of the community and the premises  

is used for rendering charitable and religious services. The Division Bench  

has proceeded on the erroneous impression that existence of an idol in a  

12

math property, when worshipped by the members of the community, would  

convert the math property into a temple.

13. The plaintiff  (Parasamaya Kolerinatha Madam)  specifically  claims  

that the suit property belonged to the plaintiff Mutt and produced several  

documents,  the  genuineness  of  which  was  not  under  question.  We  may  

examine  the  said  evidence.  Exhibit-P1  is  the  certified  copy  of  the  

preliminary  decree  in  the  scheme  suit  (Ponnaivasan  Achari  &  Ors.  v.   

Nelliappa Achari - OS No.58 of 1922, dated 29.3.1924) with reference to  

Parasamaya Kolerinatha Madam situated at Tirunelveli  and its  properties.  

The said preliminary decree declares  that Parasamaya Kolerinatha Madam  

situated at Tirunelveli is a public religious and charitable foundation for the  

benefit of five sections of Vishwakarma community of the Tamil districts of  

Southern  India  as  also  Travancore,  Cochin  and  Malabar,  holding  the  

properties mentioned in the plaint schedule; that the office of Mathadhipathi  

of the said Mutt was vacant; that it was necessary to frame the scheme for  

the appointment of a Mathadhipathi and regulate succession to the office of  

the  Mathadhipathi  and  vest  the  Mutt  and  such  property  in  such  

Mathadhipathi.  The  suit  property  was  one  of  the  properties  shown  as  

belonging to the math. After such preliminary decree, a draft scheme was  

13

filed and a scheme was framed on 2.5.1925. Ex. P2 is the final decree dated  

10.9.1927 in the said suit (OS No.58/1922) which confirms that a scheme  

has been framed for the said Parasamaya Kolerinatha Madam, Tirunelveli on  

2.5.1925; that the said scheme provided for appointment of Mathadhipathi  

and regulating the succession to the office of Mathadhipathi; that as per the  

directions of the court, the disciples of the plaintiff Mutt was convened on  

5.9.1927  and  Srimath  Rajaratna  Swami  was  unanimously  elected  as  the  

Mathadhipathi. The final decree declared that the said Rajaratna Swamigal  

was the Mathadhipathi of the institution in whom, according to the scheme  

settled in the preliminary decree, the properties described in the said final  

decree vested. The first schedule thereto enumerates the properties owned by  

the Math situated at Tirunelveli and third schedule describes the agricultural  

lands owned by the Math. The fourth schedule describes the movables. The  

fifth schedule to the said decree describes the two properties situated outside  

Tirunelveli  district  -  one  property  in  Travancore  area  and  the  property  

situated at Komaleeswararpet,  Chennai described as “Srimath Parasamaya  

Kolerinatha Swami Madam - Sri Meenakshiamman temple and its assets”.  

This document establishes beyond doubt that at a undisputed point of time,  

the  said  suit  property  was  the  property  belonging  to  the  plaintiff  Math,  

vested in its Madhathipathi.  

14

14. As against the said documents (Ex P1 and P2) which trace the title to  

more  than  55  years  before  filing  of  the  suit,  the  defendants  have  not  

produced any title deeds. The contention of the defendants that as neither  

they nor  the  trustees  preceding  them, were  parties  to  the  scheme suit  of  

1922, the decree in the said scheme suit was not binding on them, is not  

tenable.  The  defendants  have  produced  documents  to  show that  the  suit  

property and the temple therein are being managed by the members of the  

community  at  Komaleeswararpet  from  around  1938  onwards.  Obviously  

therefore  the  question  of  impleading  either  defendants  1  and  2  or  their  

predecessors in 1924 or 1925 did not arise. In fact plaintiff Math does not  

deny the fact that idol of Meenakshiamman is installed in the suit property  

and that the day to day management of the suit property was entrusted to the  

Viswakarma  community  members  in  Komaleeswararpet  Chennai,  as  the  

head quarters of the Math was situated at Tirunelveli. The entrustment of  

management  by  the  Math  to  the  elders/members  of  the  Viswakarma  

Community  under  the  guidance  and supervision  of  the  Math,  would  not  

divest the title of the Math to the property.

15. We may next refer to the undisputed documents which establish that  

the  suit  property  where  the  idol  of  Meenakshiamman  is  installed  is  the  

15

property of the plaintiff Math. The most important of the documents, which  

would clinch the case in support of the plaintiff Math is Ex. P16 which is a  

certified copy of the petition dated 7.10.1978 under section 64(1) of the Act  

(OA  No.102/1978)  filed  by  defendants  1  and  2  and  other  managing  

committee  members  of  Meenakshiamman  Temple  before  the  Deputy  

Commissioner  for  Hindu  Religious  and  Charitable  Endowments  

(Administration), Madras, for framing a scheme for appointment of Trustees  

and  management  of  the  temple.  The  subject-matter  of  the  petition  is  

described  as  “In  the  matter  of  Sri  Meenakshiamman  temple  situated  in   

Srimad  Parasamaya  Kolarinatha  Swamigal  Mutt  in  16,  Chandra  Banu  

Street,  Komaleeswaranpettai,  Madras”.  In  para  2  of  the  said  petition,  

defendants 1 and 2 and other petitioners therein averred: “There is a temple  

dedicated  to  Sri  Meenakshiamman  in  Chandrabanu  Street,   

Komaleeswaranpet,  Madras-2. The institution in question is  located in a  

Mutt belonging to Srimath Parasamaya Kolarinathaswami. The said Swami  

was the head of the members of the Viswakarma Community residing in   

Komaleeswaranpet, from time immemorial.” Having made such admission,  

they however claimed that “though the temple has been located in the Mutt,  

the Mutt is no longer in existence and that the institution in question has  

been  considered  as  the  property  of  the  members  of  the  Viswakarma  

16

Community…..…..  the  institution  in  question  has  always  been under  the  

management  of  the  members  of  the  said  community  ever  since  its  

inception.” The said petition was dismissed.  

16. Several  other  documents  produced  by plaintiff  Math  issued  by the  

defendants and their predecessors also establish that the suit property was  

always considered to be the property of the Math. They are :

 (i) Ex.P2 dated 16.10.1963 is a pamphlet issued by R.Kanakasabhapathy  

Achari  on  behalf  of  Srimath  Parasamaya  Kolerinatha  Swami  Madam,  

Komaleeswararpet Chennai, inviting devotees to participate in the worship  

of Meenakshiammam during Navarathri celebrations.

(ii) Ex. P6 is the Navrathri Mahotsava invitation/pamphlet issued by R.  

Kanagasabapathy Achari and others on 16.10.1963 describing the temple as  

“Srimath  Parasamaya  Kolerinatha  Swamigal  Madam  -  Vishwa  Karma  

Samooha  Aadheenam - Sri Meenakshi temple”.  

(iii) Ex. P7 is an invitation pamphlet dated 2.5.1970 in connection with  

Guru pooja offered to Nellai Parasamaya Kolerinatha Guru Swami and in  

that connection aradhana to Meenakshiammam and poor feeding at the suit  

property.

(iv) Ex.P8 is a receipt dated 10.5.1972 issued by first defendant for a sum  

of Rs.3 towards Gurupooja and the receipt  is  issued in the name of “Sri  

Parasamaya Kolerinatha Math --  Sri Meenakshiamman Temple”.

17

(v) Ex. P9 is a programme schedule dated 21.9.1981 issued by the first  

defendant  in  regard  to  the  celebration  of  Navarathri  festival  at  “Srimath  

Parasamaya Kolerinatha Swami Madam – Sri Meenakshiamman Navarathri  

celebrations.”

(vi) Ex. P13 is a pamphlet relating to a musical festival to be held between  

1.6.1960 to 5.6.1960 in connection with the Kumbabhishekham at “Chennai  

Komaleeswararpet,  Chandrabanu  Street,  Nellai  Srimath  Parasamaya  

Kolerinatha Math -- Sri Meenakshi Sannidhi”, issued by the Math Temple  

Festival  Committee  on  the  directions  of  Nellai  Jagatguru  Shrimath  

Parasamaya  Kolerinathar  Adeenam,  37th Jagatguru  Swami  Sivananda  

Muneeswara.

(vii) Ex.  P14  is  an  invitation  pamphlet  dated  25.5.1960  issued  by  the  

Managing Committee of “Nellai Jagatguru Srimath Parasamaya Kolerinathar  

Adeenam”  regarding  Sri  Meenakshiamman  Idol  Procession  in  

Komaleeswararpet  in  the  presence  of  Nellai  Jagatguru  Parasamaya  

Kolerinathar 37th Jagatguru Swami Sivananda Muneeswarar.   

(viii) Ex. P15 is a pamphlet dated 6.7.1960 issued by the person-in-charge  

Parasamaya  Kolerinatha  Madam,  No.11,  Chandrabanu  Street,  

Komaleeswaranpet,  Chennai,  in  connection  with  the  celebration  of  the  

coronation of the 37th Peetadhipathi Jagatguru Parasamaya Kolerinathar.  

(ix) Ex.P17 is the pamphlet dated 21.3.1960 issued by the management of  

Parasamaya Kolerinatha Madam mutt, Kamaleeswaranpettai  in connection  

18

with a festival in regard to Godess Meenakshiamman installed two centuries  

earlier by 32nd Jagatguru Srinath Swami Anavaradacharya.  

(x) Ex. P18 dated 18.7.1960 is the invitation to the disciples and followers  

of Shrimath Parasamaya Kolerinatha Swami to have darshan of the Swami at  

Parasamaya  Kelarinatha  Swami  Math,  No.11,  Chandrabanu  Street,  

Komaleeswararpet, Chennai.

It is not necessary to refer to other documents exhibited by plaintiff math,  

most of which relate to a period subsequent to the filing of the suit.  

17. The defendants marked Ex D1 to D 42. Most of the documents related  

to the festivals conducted in connection with the Meenakshiamman temple  

or  regarding  the  handing  over  of  management  of  the  temple  from  one  

managing committee  to another  managing committee.  Many relate  to the  

period subsequent to the suit and not relevant. But several of them relate to  

the  undisputed  period  before  the  suit  and  clearly  prove  the  case  of  the  

plaintiff Math. We may refer to some of defendants’ exhibits:

(i) Ex. D1 dated 7.4.1938 is the pamphlet issued by the person-in-charge  

of  the  suit  property  -  Adhimoola  Achari  in  regard  to  appointment  of  

Committee  for  managing  “Sri  Meenakshi  Temple  situated  in  Chennai  

Komaleeswaranpettai Srimath Parasamaya Kolerinatha Swami Math”.

19

(ii) Ex.  D8  is  a  pamphlet  dated  16.10.1941  by  Adhimoola  Achari,  

‘Dharmakartha’  of  the  temple  in  regard  to  a  festival  at  Sri  Meenakshi  

Temple  at  Sri  Parasamaya  Kolerinatha  Madam,  Kamaleeswaranpet,  

Chennai.

(iii) Ex. D16 is a pamphlet about the appointment of Managing Committee  

of Sri Meenakshiamman temple at Srimath Parasamaya Kolerinatha Swami  

Madam for the term 17.6.1945 to 5.3.1950.

(iv) Ex. D24 is the Invitation Pamphlet dated 10.5.1972 in connection with  

Guru Pooja of the founder of the plaintiff Math at the suit property.

(v) Ex. D32 is a pamphlet dated 5.10.1966 issued by Kanagasabapathy  

Achari  in  regard  to  Navrathri  festival  in  Meenakshi  Temple  at  Srimath  

Parasamaya Kolerinatha Madam.  

18. These documents irrefutably establish that the temple was a part of the  

Math; that the Math appointed a local elder of Viswakarma Community at  

Komaleeswaranpet  to manage the suit  property and the place of  worship  

therein, that the local elder handed over management to successive elected  

managing  committees  (from  the  Viswakarma  community  at  

Komaleeswaranpet,  Chennai)  to  be  in  day  to  day  management;  that  the  

defendants and their predecessors who were the members of the Managing  

Committee of the temple, had always accepted and described the place of  

worship as being a part of Parasamaya Kolerinatha Guruswamigal Madam,  

20

that is plaintiff-Mutt. When some of the pamphlets exhibited by defendants  

describe the  place of  worship in  the Math  property as  Meenakshiamman  

‘koil’, the word was not used as referring to a ‘temple’ as defined in the Act,  

but as a place of worship always as part of and belonging to the plaintiff  

math.  

19. The oral evidence the second defendant – T.R.Nataraj Achary (DW1)  

also establishes that Meenakshiamman Koil was part of plaintiff Math.  In  

the examination-in-chief, he states that the suit property is Meenakshiamman  

temple which has been administered by a group of trustees elected/appointed  

by the Viswakarma community in Komaleeswararpet and the temple belongs  

to  the  Viswakarma  community  of  Komaleeswararpet.  However  he  also  

stated  that  Srimat  Parasamaya  Kolerinatha  Swamigul,  who  lived  several  

centuries ago in Tirunelveli, was the Guru of Viswakarma community and  

there is a statue of the said Swami in the temple; that a sect of Viswakarma  

community regularly conducts Guru Pooja in honour of the founder of the  

Math in the premises. He extract below some of his answers which establish  

the case of the plaintiff Math:  

“Q. Did the present Head of Mutt or the previous Head of Mutt stay in the  Meenakshi temple ?  

21

A. The present Head of the Mutt stayed only for one and a half hour and  the previous Head of the Mutt might have come and stayed.”

“Q:  This  notice  (Ex.D.24  and  Ex.P.7)  was  issued  by  64  Thalaikettu  Viswakarma Community people, is it so?

A: Yes. This pooja is being conducted by them.

Q: See Ex. D.24 and Ex.P.7, there is a song in the beginning of the matter.

A: Yes.

Q:  The  Guru  referred  to  in  both  the  notification  in  the  song  is  Nellai  Parasamaya Kolarinatha Swamigal, is it not?

A: Yes.

Q: 64 Thalaikattu Viswakarma Community are residing in Madras, is it  so?

A: Yes. They are living in Madras.

Q: 64 Thalaikattu Viswakarma Community are celebrating (Guru) poojas  in the suit property, is it not?

A: Yes.

Q:  That  Guru  Pooja  is  in  respect  of  Nellai  Parasamaya  Kolarinatha  Swamigal? A: Yes.

Q: Ex.P.7 was issued after you claimed to have been a trustee of the suit  property?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you know that the present suit has been filed by Nellai Parasamaya  Kolarinatha Swamigal?

A: Yes. I am aware.

Q: There is a stone image of Nellai Parasamaya Kolarinatha in the suit  property?

A: Yes.

22

Q: This image in the suit property is that of the man you are referring to?

A: Yes.

Q: The chappals (‘Padukas’) owned by him are in the suit property? A: Yes.

Q: Ex.P.9 was a notice issued by you for Navarathiri Festival in the suit  property in 1981. Your name is also there?

A: Yes. My name is also there.

Q:  In  this  document  the  suit  property  is  described  as  Parasamaya  Kolarinatha Swamigal Madam?

A: Yes.

Q:  So  from  1938  to  1981  suit  property  is  described  as  Parasamaya  Kolarinatha Madam?

A:  Yes.  It  is  from  the  beginning  known  as  Parasamaya  Kolarinatha  Swamigal Madam.

Q: This document Ex.D.30 (Page No.9) is also filed by you?

A: Yes.

Q: There also (Page 8 of Ex.D.30) it is referred that Kolarinatha Swamigal  installed the Meenakshi Amman Idol.

A: Yes.”       

20. The  learned  Single  Judge  has  referred  to  oral  and  documentary  

evidence  in  detail  and  recorded  a  categorical  finding  that  the  property  

belonged to the plaintiff Mutt and that the claim of the defendants that the  

plaintiff  Math  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  suit  property  was  false  and  

untenable.  On the  other  hand,  the  Division  Bench  failed  to  consider  the  

23

significance of these relevant documents. It inferred that the suit property  

ceased to be a Math property and became a ‘temple’ as defined in section  

6(20) of  the Act,  because the Meenakshiamman idol was installed in the  

Math property and the members of the community were offering worship  

and festivals were conducted and celebrated by the Managing Committee  

and Municipal taxes were being paid by the Managing Committee.  But it  

failed to notice that mere existence of idols in Math premises or worship  

thereof by the public would not convert a property belonging to the Math  

into  a  temple.  It  failed  to  notice  that  installation  of  the  idol  

Meenakshiamman and installation of the statue of Sri Swami Parasamaya  

Kolerinatha Guru and conducting the festivals and Gurupoojas were part of  

Math’s activities being held and conducted in the name of the plaintiff Mutt  

or its Mathadhipathi.

21. The  oral  and  documentary  evidence  produced  by  the  plaintiff  and  

defendants clearly and categorically establish the following factual positions  

factual positions :   

(i) The suit property belonged to the plaintiff Math;

(ii) The  Meenakshiamman  idol  was  installed  by  the  32nd  

Mathadhipathi  of  the  Math  in  suit  property,  in  the  eighteenth  

24

century.  There is nothing to show that  installation was with the  

object  of  dedicating the  premises  as  a  place  of  public  religious  

worship. On the other hand the suit property was and always been  

a property belonging to the plaintiff Math, where the members of  

Vishwakarma community were permitted to offer worship to the  

idol of Meenakshiamman.  

(iii) The  suit  property  is  used  regularly  to  celebrate  Guru  pooja  in  

honour of the founder of the Math and the Mathadhipathis.  The  

premises was used by the Mathadhipathi of the plaintiff Math and  

his disciples and followers for their stay at Chennai.

(iv) The  head  of  plaintiff  Math  had  directed  the  Viswakarma  

community in Komaleeswararpettai, Chennai to manage the day to  

day affairs of the suit property including provision for worship of  

idols in the property by constituting a Managing Committee. The  

Managing Committee  was  managing  the  Math  property  and the  

temple therein, recognizing and accepting that they were part of  

plaintiff Math.

(v) In  the  year  1978,  the  defendants  and  others  in  management  

attempted unsuccessfully to assert that the premises is exclusively  

a  temple  belonging  to  the  Viswakarma  community  members  at  

Komaleeswararpet and not the plaintiff Math.

In view of the above findings, all the three questions raised are answered in  

favour of the appellant Math.

25

22. As the management through a local committee has been in vogue for  

several decades, it would be appropriate if the same system is continued for  

the efficient management of the suit property and the place of worship. The  

Managing  Committee  should  consist  of  a  Chairman  nominated  by  the  

Mathadhipathi of plaintiff Math and six members (of whom three shall be  

nominated by plaintiff Math and the remaining three shall be elected by the  

Viswakarma  community  at  Komaleeswararpet,  Chennai).  The  said  

Managing Committee will be accountable to the plaintiff Math and act under  

its directions.

23. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree  

of the division bench of the High Court is set aside and the judgment and  

decree of the learned Single Judge decreeing the suit is restored as under:

(i) The  suit  property  with  the  installed  idols  and  other  assets  is  

declared to be the property of the plaintiff Math. The possession  

and  control  of  the  suit  property  with  the  place  of  worship  

(Meenakshiamman temple) vests with the plaintiff Math.

(ii) Neither the Viswakarma community of Komaleeswararpet or the  

Committees  of  Management  of  the  ‘Meenakshiamman  Temple’  

26

own the suit property or the place of worship therein. They were  

merely acting as the representatives of the plaintiff Math.

(iii) The defendants and their agents and representatives shall deliver  

the entire suit property with the place of worship with the installed  

idols and all movables, to the plaintiff Math forthwith.

(iv) Parties to bear their respective costs.  

…………………………J. (R V Raveendran)

New Delhi; ………………………….J. September 22, 2011. (H L Gokhale)

27