COMMISSIONER H R AND C E A DEPT NUNGAMBAKKAM HIGH ROAD MADRAS Vs. ARULMIGU KARIAMMAN TEMPLE KOSAVAMPATTY NAMAKKAL TK SALEM DIST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS are the appellants.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiffs is as follows:- Arulmigu Mariamman Temple situate in Kosavampatti Village, Namakkal Taluk, Salem District was founded by the Kavarai Chettiars of that village. THE temple was managed exclusively by them and festivals were also conducted by that community people alone. THEre are Vinayagar temple, Perumal temple, Madeswaran temple and Navagraham temple. THE temple land for the temple was donated by the persons who hail from Kavarai Chettiar community of that village. THE land was surrounded by houses. THE community people applied for sanction to auction the property and it was auctioned for Rs.17,100 and it is in deposit and the interest is spent for the maintenance of the temple. THE Endowment Board also appointed trustee from the said community alone as selected by the said community of the village from 1965 onwards. THE Assistant Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Salem appointed trustees from the said community as selected by that community people. So the temple exclusively belongs to and is man aged by the Kavarai Chettiar community. THE plaintiffs belong to Kavarai Chettiar community and they are at present the elected trustees of the temple and they are regular" worshippers of the temple. In the year 1975, the community renovated all the temples and did Kumbabhishekam. THE plaintiffs understand that proceedings are being taken for appointing the trustees for all the temples in the District, If any such action is taken, the right of the community will be affected. Hence, they filed petition u nder Sec.64 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act before the deputy Commissioner for framing a scheme for making appointment of trustees only from the community of Kosavampatti village. THE Deputy Commissioner dismissed the petition. THE plaintiffs preferred appeal before the Commissioner and the Commissioner, without considering the merits of the case dismissed the appeal by an order dated 15.4.83 and that order is erroneous and it is liable to be set aside. THE second defendant had appointed the third defendant as the trustee for the temple from the community. Hence, the suit is filed by the plaintiffs to a set aside the order of the first defendant and declare that the suit temple exclusively belongs to and managed by the Kavarai Chettiar community of Kosavampatti village.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that the suit temple is not a denominational temple belonging to Kavarai Chettiar community of Kosavampatti village and the judgment and decree passed by the trial court are based on surmises and presumptions and they are., arbitrary since there is no evidence to show that the suit temple was founded by the people of Kavarai chettiar community and the suit temple is a public temple and the order of the defendants is not liable to be set aside.