The Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. (Admn.) Department and Another vs Sri Annakavadi Samadhi Madam and Others

AR. Lakshmanan, J.—Heard both sides. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in A.S.No. 474 of 1983 dated

27.10.1994 reversing the judgment and decree in O.S.No. 105 of 1978 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Kumbakonam. The only question

arises before us is as to whether the institution is one falling within the purview of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The trial

court held that the institution in question is a religious institution falling u/s 6(13) and (18) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act,

1959. Before the Subordinate Judge Exs.A-1 to A. 14 were marked on the side of the plaintiffs and Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked on the side of

the defendants. Pakkiriswami Naidu, the plaintiff has examined himself as P.W.1 and the Department examined its Inspector by name

Gangadharan as D.W.1. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, the plaintiff preferred A.S.No. 474 of

1983. Learned single Judge on consideration of the entire evidence on record came to the conclusion that the plaintiff institution will not come

under the definition of Madam and therefore, set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner as confirmed by the Commissioner. The correctness

of the Judgment and decree dated 27.10.1994 is challenged in this appeal by the department.

Mr. Elango, learned Government Advocate reiterated the arguments advanced before the Lower Court and also before the learned single Judge

and contended that the plaintiff institution does not come under the definition of Section 6(13) and (18) of the Act and he also drew our attention to

the evidence of P. W. 1 and D.W.1 and also the documents filed in this case. The evidence of P.W.1 is very clear. It is the evidence of P.W. 1

that the public do not come to the Samathi and maintain the same. There is no collection from the public and even during Guru pooja days public

do not participate in the poojas and only from the income from the coconut thope, the poojas were conducted to the samadhis. During cross-

examination, he would reiterate that there is no meditation in the Samathi. The evidence of P.W. 1 thus, disclose that except the trustee mentioned

in the settlement deed under Ex.A-2, there is nothing to indicate that it is a religious institution. The Temple Inspector was examined as D.W.1 His

evidence would only corroborate the evidence of P.W. 1. In this cross-examination, he would say that he has visited the property only once in

1981. It is also admitted by him that he has not obtained any statement from any public even though, he has examined them orally and he could not

give the names of the persons who were examined by him. It is his evidence that public do not come and offer worship in the property in question.

As already seen, the evidence of P.W. 1 is very clear in that it is stated that only the trustees mentioned in the settlement deed and their heirs were

only performing poojas and the expenses for that are borne from the income from the property. Except the fact that poojas are performed for the

Samathi in the said property by the persons mentioned in the settlement deed, there is nothing to indicate that any other person has any right over

the institution in question. The ingredients of Section 6(13) and (18) is not attracted in the instant case. The institution in question admittedly is not

presided over by a person. There is also no line of succession to whose office it devolves in accordance with the direction of the founder of the

institution. It is also not regulated by usage. The trustees are also not engaging themselves in imparting religious instructions or rendering spiritual

service. They do not claim to have exercised spiritual headship over a body of disciples. Learned single judge has also found that no person is

presiding over a institution and succession to the office of the trustees has been under Ex. A-2 by the parties to the settlement and it is not a line of

succession which was directed to be followed by the founder of the institution viz., Maruthappa Desigar. We are, therefore, of the view that the

institution in question is not a religious institution falling under the definition of Section 6(13) and (18) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Act.

No other points were argued before us. The Appeal; therefore, fails and is dismissed. No costs.