Shivaraj V. Patil, J. - (1.) The appellants filed suit for declaration that the suit temple is a denominational temple and that the defendants 1 and 2 have no jurisdiction to appoint the third defendant as fit person. The trial Court decreed the suit. The first appellate court reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the suit. The High Court in second appeal upheld the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court.
(2.) The High Court in the impugned judgment has narrated the facts in sufficient details based on the pleadings of the parties and the material that was placed on record. It is not necessary to state them again. However, to the extent they are relevant and necessary in the light of the contentions advanced on behalf of the parties, we notice them hereunder.
(3.) The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court was that the first plaintiff is a denominational temple entitled to exemption as provided under Art. 26 of the Constitution of India and S. 107 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (for short the Act); the temple is in Nalloor village and is known as Sree Uchini Makali Amman Temple, built on an extent of 17 cents in S. No. 1593 and that the entire extent is owned by the Vellala Community of Marthandam. The Vellalas residing in Marthandam are a collection of individuals professing Hindu faith; the ancestors of the members of the community constituting corporate body founded the temple in the land purchased by the members of Vellala Community. The plaintiff further claimed that the members of Vellala Community observed special religious practices and beliefs which are integral part of their religion and that the front mandapam of the Sanctorium is open to access only to members of their community and none-else. Outsiders can offer worship from the outer compound.;