G BASHYAM CHETTY Vs. A GOVINDARAJULU CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of Mack J. affirming the order of the learn ed District Judge of Chingleput on an appli-cation made by the contesting respondents for sew ing aside an order of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments board dated 5th August, 1948 and to a declaration that the property constituting the sub-ject matter of this appeal is a temple within the definition of temple in the madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act. The learned District Judge se aside the order of the Board and declared the pro-perty to be a public temple. On appeal, mack, J. confirmed the decision. Hence this appeal by (sic) first respondent to the petition.

(2.) THE only question in this appeal is whether the property, which is the matter of the appeal namely, premises No. 37-B Vilakkadi Koil St. Little Conjeevaram, chingleput Dt. is a temple as defined in Section 9 (12) of the Madras Hindu religious Endow ments Act. The following facts emerge put of the evidence adduced by both sides. In 1906, one Purushotham Venkata Ramanujulu Chettiar purchased a house bearing D. No. 37, Vilakkadi Koil St. and converted what was a residential house into a temple. He installed the idol of Sri Kervanna Perumal (one of the 108 Archa Avatarams of Lord Vishnu) which he obtained from Ulakalandar temple in which that idol was temporarily housed as the original sannadhi had become dilapidated. He also installed other idols and alwars and acharyas and perumal and thayar. He employed a bhaltar to carry on the daily worship. There is evidence that the premises came to bear many of the indicia of a temple. There was a granite doorway and the flooring was of granite. Besides the image of moolavar, there was also utsavar vigraham. There was a separate madapalli or kitchen. There is also evidence that the public used to regularly worship at the shrine. They had free access thereto, prasadams were distributed to the worshippers, and sometimes collections were made from them towards utsavams and other expenses connected with the deities. It is clear that even by 1925 it was re- cognised that the premises was a temple dedicated to Sri Karvanna Perumal. In a guide book published that year, it is related that as the sanadhi of this. deity was in rains, the deity was kept in Ulakalandar temple but subsequently the idol was kept in Vilak-kadi Koil Street "in a place resembling a bhajana madam". In 1928 the founder Venkataramanujulu Chetti died. He was survived by his widowed daughter-in-law, one Janaki Ammal, and by the two sons of his deceased brother who were the second respondent and the fourth petitioner respectively in the original petition. At a partition effected between the second respondent and the fourth petitioner the property in question was allotted to the second respondent. But the evidence makes it clear that the second respondent was continuing to treat the premises as a public temple. He raised public contributions to improve the temple and he was arranging to instal other vigrahams. The daily puja continued. The institution became well known as a public temple and this is apparent from the documents ranging from 1931 to 1941 describing the property as a temple in the recitals of boundaries of adjoining properties. It is admitted that till 1943 the property was not taxed evidently on the ground that it was dedicated for religious purposes. In 1943 there were unprecedented floods in Conjeevaram. To safeguard the idols from the ravages of the floods they were removed to another local temple, namely, Alagasingar temple, where they were temporarily housed. As one witness very graphically describes this, the deities became ''re- fugeea". The second respondent, Vasudeva Chetty though he appears to have been a pious man in the beginning, laterly began to be more worldly-minded and was neglecting the worship and upkeep of the temple. Instead, he occupied a portion of the premises of the temple and set up a loom. The only close relation he had was his mother who died in 1943. With his mother dead and the idols away at a different place, Vasudeva Chetty evidently thought that it was more lucrative to convert this temple into an ordinary residential house. He removed the granite doorway and put up a partition and made other alterations which convert- ed the temple into an ordinary house. Not content with this he purported to convey the property as his own private property to a Shishya of his, the first respondent, under Ex. B-2 dated 15th Novem ber 1943. In 1947 certain worshippers of the temple put in an application under Section 84 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act before the Board to declare the premises as a temple as defined in the Act. It was opposed by the first respondent who had obtained the property under the gift deed executed by the second respondent. It may be that this application itself was inspired by the second respondent, who it is likely, was not wiling to stand by the gift which he had executed in favour of the first respondent. There was ah enquiry by the Board and they carne to the following conclusion :

(3.) THE learned District Judge discussed the entire evidence and held that the institution was a public temple and supported his finding by ten grounds. It is unnecessary to deal at length with each of these grounds. It is sufficient to say that we entirely agree with the learned District Judge that the evidence disclosed that from 1908 onwards. the premises was used as a place of public religious worship and that it was only in 1943 by the happen-ing of an extraordinary event, namely, the floods, that the second respondent conceived the idea of converting the temple into a private house. We see no reason to reject the testimony of the witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners who speak to general public worship at the shrine.