# COMMISSIONER FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE A ENDOWMENTS, MYSORE v. RATNAVARMA HEGGADE (DECEASED) BY HIS L.RS

- **Citation:** [1977] 1 S.C.R. 889
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1976-10-20
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 111 of 1971
- **Bench:** A. N. Ray, M. H. Beg, P. N. Shinghal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/commissioner-for-hindu-religious-charitable-a-endowments-mysore-v-ratnavarma-6994
- **Pages:** 25

## Headnote

Hin~u Law-Religious Endowment-Hindu temple forming part of a Jain
Instituion-When niay be treated as a Hindu religious endowment.
Sectio1i 9(12) of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926 defines 'temple' as a place, by whatever designation known, used as a pla~e cf
public worship and dedicated to, or for the benefit of, or used as of right by
the Hindu community, or any section thereof, as a place of religious worship.
Section 9(11) provides that all property belonging to, or· given or endowed for
the support of a temple or for the performance of any service or charity connected with the temple will constitute its endowment, including the premises of
the temple. Section 2 provides that the Act applies to all Hindu public religious
endowments.
The Section, the Explamation to the section, and s. 3 (b) show
that Hindu public religions endowments' do not include private endowments and
Jain religious endowments.
Dharmasthal, in which the temple in dispute was situate has a number of
institutions which were under the management of a person known as Heggade,
who was a Jain. The Religious Endowments Board, after an enquiry, held that
the Act applied to the temple. On application made under s. 84(2), the District
Judge held that it was a private temple, and that, therefore, the Act did not
apply to it. On appeal, the High Court did not consider whether it was a private temple, but held that the temple was an adjunct to the composite institution of Dharmasthal, that, according to the customs and usages of the institution, the temple could not be separated from the rest of the institutions, that
Dharmasthal was both a religious and charitable institution, that the deity in the
temple was worshipped both by the Hindus and the Jains in accordance with
their respective faiths, that the deity was neither an exclusively Hindu deity nor
an exclusively Jain deity, that the institution of Dharmasthal was founded by a
Jain, that its administration remained exclusively Jain since its inception, that it
could not be inferred that there was: an implied dedication to the Hmdus exclusively, and, that therefore the temple' was not a temple as defined in the Act, and
that the Act did not apply to it. The High Court also held that its property was
also an adjunct to the composite institution consisting of Hindu Gods, Jain Gods
and Daivas, worshipped by Hindus and Jains.
Dismissing the '.i12Peal by special leave to this Court,
HELD : (Per A. N. Ray, C.J., and P. N. Shinghal, J)
•
( 1) Section 9 ( 12) of the Act only requires that the temple should be dedicated for public religous. worship, as of right by Hindus, but it would not detract
from its character of a temple as such if Jains also worship there.
The provisions of the Act will however not be attracted to it in the absence of any
evidence to prove the existence of an endowment for it, as the Act applies only
to Hindu public religious endowments. [899 H, 900 A]
(2) The evidence in the case shows that the institution of Dbarmastbal was
originally a Jain religious and charitable institution to which property was endowed by the ancestors of the present Heggade who was himself a Jain. It
was that endowment which spread and gained more and more importance ever
the years because of the offerings made largely by Hindu and. Jain devote~s and
worshirqiers.
A lingam was installed in th.e ~mple by a Hu;idu Sanyas1 only
in the 16th century; but, it bas not been estabhshed that there 1s any_ endowment
which could be said to belong exclusively to the temple.
Even 1f any such
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
890
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 1 S.C.R.
endowment was made by some one in the name of the temple it was taken to :..e
an endowment for the entire institution known as Dharmasthal and was treated
as such.
The temple cannot therefore be said to be a Hindu relgiom endowment within the meanin.g of s. 2 and the provisions of the Act are not applio- ·
able to it. f896 F-H; 897 Al
.
(3) The evidence also show

## Text

_Characters 0–39,731 of 78,157. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39731 for what follows._

'
-\
889
COMMISSIONER FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE A
ENDOWMENTS, MYSORE
v.
RATNAVARMA HEGGADE (DECEASED) BY HIS L.RS.
October 20, 1976
[A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.]
Hin~u Law-Religious Endowment-Hindu temple forming part of a Jain
Instituion-When niay be treated as a Hindu religious endowment.
Sectio1i 9(12) of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926 defines 'temple' as a place, by whatever designation known, used as a pla~e cf
public worship and dedicated to, or for the benefit of, or used as of right by
the Hindu community, or any section thereof, as a place of religious worship.
Section 9(11) provides that all property belonging to, or· given or endowed for
the support of a temple or for the performance of any service or charity connected with the temple will constitute its endowment, including the premises of
the temple. Section 2 provides that the Act applies to all Hindu public religious
endowments.
The Section, the Explamation to the section, and s. 3 (b) show
that Hindu public religions endowments' do not include private endowments and
Jain religious endowments.
Dharmasthal, in which the temple in dispute was situate has a number of
institutions which were under the management of a person known as Heggade,
who was a Jain. The Religious Endowments Board, after an enquiry, held that
the Act applied to the temple. On application made under s. 84(2), the District
Judge held that it was a private temple, and that, therefore, the Act did not
apply to it. On appeal, the High Court did not consider whether it was a private temple, but held that the temple was an adjunct to the composite institution of Dharmasthal, that, according to the customs and usages of the institution, the temple could not be separated from the rest of the institutions, that
Dharmasthal was both a religious and charitable institution, that the deity in the
temple was worshipped both by the Hindus and the Jains in accordance with
their respective faiths, that the deity was neither an exclusively Hindu deity nor
an exclusively Jain deity, that the institution of Dharmasthal was founded by a
Jain, that its administration remained exclusively Jain since its inception, that it
could not be inferred that there was: an implied dedication to the Hmdus exclusively, and, that therefore the temple' was not a temple as defined in the Act, and
that the Act did not apply to it. The High Court also held that its property was
also an adjunct to the composite institution consisting of Hindu Gods, Jain Gods
and Daivas, worshipped by Hindus and Jains.
Dismissing the '.i12Peal by special leave to this Court,
HELD : (Per A. N. Ray, C.J., and P. N. Shinghal, J)
•
( 1) Section 9 ( 12) of the Act only requires that the temple should be dedicated for public religous. worship, as of right by Hindus, but it would not detract
from its character of a temple as such if Jains also worship there.
The provisions of the Act will however not be attracted to it in the absence of any
evidence to prove the existence of an endowment for it, as the Act applies only
to Hindu public religious endowments. [899 H, 900 A]
(2) The evidence in the case shows that the institution of Dbarmastbal was
originally a Jain religious and charitable institution to which property was endowed by the ancestors of the present Heggade who was himself a Jain. It
was that endowment which spread and gained more and more importance ever
the years because of the offerings made largely by Hindu and. Jain devote~s and
worshirqiers.
A lingam was installed in th.e ~mple by a Hu;idu Sanyas1 only
in the 16th century; but, it bas not been estabhshed that there 1s any_ endowment
which could be said to belong exclusively to the temple.
Even 1f any such
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
890
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 1 S.C.R.
endowment was made by some one in the name of the temple it was taken to :..e
an endowment for the entire institution known as Dharmasthal and was treated
as such.
The temple cannot therefore be said to be a Hindu relgiom endowment within the meanin.g of s. 2 and the provisions of the Act are not applio- ·
able to it. f896 F-H; 897 Al
.
(3) The evidence also shows that the temple is part and parcel of the composite institution known as Dharmasthal and is so inseparably connected with
it that it is its integral part, and it cannot therefore be held to be an endowment
within the meaning of s. 9 ( 11). It has not been proved that any property belongs to the temple or has been given or endowed for its support or for the
performance of any service or charity connected therewith, or that it has any
such premises of its own as could be said to form its own endowmeat.
The
mere installation of the idol in the temple could not be said to bring into existence any such property as could be sncid to belong to the deity or given or
endowed for the support of its temple or for the .performance of any service or
charity connected therewith.
The temple does not have
even t' separate .
prakaram. The shrine of the adjacent shrine is in close proximity of the temple
and within the same prakaram. The existence of other shrines of Jain Daivas
in the same prakaram as the temple, therefore, shows that this temple
cannot
even claim to have any exclusive premises of its own so as to comtitute an
endowment within the meaning of s. 9(11) of the Act. [897 A, FJ
( 4) In· a given case, it may be difficult to! prove the original dedication because of the lapse of considerable time and its user by Hindus as of right may
be enough to prove an initial dedication. But, in the present case, it would not
be possible to conclude that there was any such dedication because there is nothing to show how the Hindu Sanyasi, who installed the lingam in the temple in
the 16th century, could be said to be a donor when the property did not belong
to him. [900 F-G]
(5) The facts that the temple was not shown to be a Jain endowment. and
that it possesses the characteristics of a Hindu temple will not make any difference because, there is no evidence to show that there is any endowment to the
temple, as such, a:nd the temple is a pa1t and parcel of Dharmasthal. [900 A.Bl
Per Beg, J.
(1) In order to decide a dispute under s. 84(1)(a) it is necessary to decide
whether a particular place is a temple as contemplated by the Act.
But, that
is not enough for the decison of the whole issue to be decided.
For that purpose attention has also to be directed towards deciding the question whether the
institution to be considered is a temple and nothing more. If the temple, as a
place of worship, is an integral part of an institution so that it is not separable
as an institution in itself, the mere fact that there is a temple as defined by the
Act, where Hindu members of the public worship as a matter of right, will not
do. In such a case, the institution is not the temple, although a temple can by
itself, be an institution. There is thus a distincttion between the meanings of
'temple' merely as a place of worship as defined in s. 9(12) and a 'temple' as
an institution.
It is therefore, necessary to consider the history, fhe beliefs
underlying at the inception and sought to be propagated the forms of worshop
meant to be kept altve, the prevalent customs and pracvces, the exact nature
and process of the endowments connected with the institution, the established
rules for its management, the objects t9 be carried out by those in charge of the·
endowment, and whether all these taken together justify the inference that a
particular temple, as defined by the Act, is also a separate or separable institution by itself, or is just an integral and organically inseparable part of an institution or an organisation outside the Act, [903 A-B. 906E, H-907 A-Cl
(2) A consideration of the properly which belongs to or is endowed for the
support of temples or for performance of any service or charity conl'!ected therewith including the premises of temples may also become necessary so as to
determine the character of an emlnwment as a part of the institution and the
process by which it took place. [907 F-G]
(3) The orfoin and process of dedication is not always found embodied in
a document. Where the dedication itself is evidenced by a document. its objects,
\-
f-
COMM. FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS v. RATNAVARMA (Shinghal, J.) 891
such as they may be, can be determined by interpreting the document. There
A
are, however, many cases in which dedication or endowment of property for a
,:Particular purposes has to be inferred from immemorial or long user of a property in a particular manner or from the conduct of a party. Neither a documeut nor express words are essential for a dedication for a religiuus or public
purpose in our country.
Although religous
ceremonies
of
Sankalpa
and
Samarpan~n are relevant for proving a dedication, yet, they are not indispensable. [907 G-H; 908 A-BJ
'
.(
Bholanath Nandi v. Midnapora Zamindary Co. Ltd. 31 I.A. 75, Lakslzmidlzar
B
.(
\
Misra & Ors. v. Rangalal & Ors. AIR 1950 PC 56, Manohar Gandhi v. Lakhmiram, ILR 12 Born. 247 @ 263, Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar, [1956J S.C.R.
756 and Puajri Lakshmana Goundan v. Subramaniya 29
C.W.N.
112 (P.C.)
referred to.
·
( 4 l •An that s. 9(12) requires is that the place should be a place of worship
either dedicated for the benefit of or used as of ri/d1t by the Hindu community
or a section thereof as a place of religious worship. The word 'exclusively' is
:n0t there e>t all so as to justify any exclusion of a place of worship from the
definition of a temple on the ground that Jains worship together with Hindus of
·other sects.
But, the issue to be decided is whether the 'institution' is a temple
as defiued in the Act. It is not whether a particular place is a temple, in the
·sense that it is set apart for worship by the Hindu public in general or a section
-of it, but it is whether an institution itself is a temple as defined
by the
Act. [905; D-G, 906 F-H, 907 A-DJ.
.
c
(5) In the present case, the findings of the High Court show that the instiD
tution or organisation of which the temple is an inseparable part, is predominantly Jain in character.
In view of the well established doctrine of implied
endowment of property, by its long user for a particular religious or public
purpose, based on a presumed consent, it could be said that the temple had
become a separate; institution with an endowment of its own consisting at least
of the land over which the temple had been built, the building and the idol
installed with free access to it by the Hindu public in general which made offerings even though fains also worship there. But, in view of the general rule of
practice under Art. 136 of the Constituion that this Court does not disturb findings
E
of the final court of fact where two views are possible, this Court would not differ
from the conclusion reached by the High Court that the temple was not a
separate institution.
On such a finding it would be exempt from the operation
of the Act by reason of the Explanation to s. 2 excluding Jain religious endowments from the benefits of the Act. [905 E-H, 907 D-FJ
(6) In the present case, neither the District Judge nor the High Court had
given any findings whether any endowment whatsoever of the temple existed.
The extent of property covered by an endowment was also not really investigatF
ed as no issue was framed on it. At least the structure of the temple with the
idol installed and the ground upon which the temple stands must be deemed to
be dedicated even t~ough these may not for purposes of management, form
separable units.
When a religious institution becomes a means
of obtaining
money or material J:>enefits, in the form of offerings or donations or gifts, as it
generally does, from members of the pubic, a danger of its mis11se can only be
effectively averted by appropriate supervision. The powers of the Government,
under the relevant Act to extend the provisions of the Act to Jain public religious
G
institutions which are Tiot affec:c:l by the dispute brought before the Court, are
however, adequate to deal with such situation. [912 A-H, 913A]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 111 of 1971.
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Decree dated
30-8-1968 of the Mysore High Court in Regular Appeal No. 165/57)
Sachin Chaudhuri and Narayana Nettar, for the Appellant.
H
'A. K. Sen, K. N. Bhatt and K. R. D. Karanath, for the Respondent
through L.Rs.
7 -1338SCI/76
892
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 1 S.C.R.
A
The Judgment of A. N. Ray, C.J. and P. N. Shinghal, J. was deliB
c
D
E
F
vered by Shingha~, J. M. H. Beg, J. gave a separate Opinion.
SHINGHAL, J. -This appeal by special leave arises out of the
judgment of the High Court of Mysore dated Au:>ust 30, 1968,
upholding the order of District Judge, South Kanara, J'.1ted Novcmher
9, 1956.
By that order the District Judge set aside the decision of
the Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras
hereinafter referred to as the Board, that the institution known as Srl
Manjunatha temple at Dharmasthal, Puttur Taluk,
South
Kanara
district, was a 'temple' as defined in clause ( 12) of section 9 of the
Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926 (Madras Act II oi
1927), hereinafter referred to as the Act.
The Comrni~sionef under
the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act feels
aggrieved because the impugned judgment has the effect of taking the
temple out of the control provided by the Act.
The respondett in this
appeal was the "supplemental" petitioner before the District Judge and
was brought on record on the death of Manjayya Heggade who was the
original petitioner in the petition under sub-section (2) of section 84
of the Act.
The controversy relates to the Manjunatha temple, in Dharmasthal,
which is now the name of a village in Belthangady taluk of South
Kanara district of Tamil Nadu. The original name of the village was
Mallarmadi.
The locality in which the temple is situat•xl was called
Kukya Kudume, but it came to be known as Dharmasthal after the
visit of Sri Vadiraja Swamiar of Sode Mutt, Udipi, in the 16th century,
to which reference will be made in a while.
It is not in dispute that, even according to the Heggade, Dharmasthal has a number of institutions
including
the following
main
institutions,-
1. Nelleyadi Beedu,
2. Chandranatha Basthi,
3. Manjunatha temple,
4. Ammanvaru temple, and
5. Heggadeship.
These institutions have been shown in exhibit A 59 which is said to
be a rough sketch of the Dharmasthal. It is also not in dispute before
us that "Daivas" were first established in Nelleyadi Beedu, by an
G
ancestor of Heggade who was a Jain, and .were . ~orshipped
t~er~.
Heggade began to give charity to persons of all reh~1~m~, .and the mst1tution became well known and travellers began to v1s1t 1t m large numbers. It is the common case of the parties that Sri Vadiraja Swamiar
of Sode Mutt, Udipi, who was a Sanyasi, happened to p~ss that way
and was invited by Heggade to stay there.
The Swam1ar however
refused to accept food there on the ground that it was "Bhuta Kshetra".
H . Heggade felt very sorry as the great Sanyasi was s~arving in ~is house.
It is said that Heggade thereupon arranged to mstal the idol
of
Sri Manjunatha in the "garbagriha." The Swamiar was appeased and.
performed the first "pooja" in that temple, which thereafter came to
.....
'
COMM. FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS v. RATNAVARMA (Shinghal, J.) 893
be known as Dharmasthal.
This is said to
have happened in the
sixteenth century and is, at any rate, said to be the origin of the
Manjunatha temple in the Dharmasthal campus.
The Board started proceedings under section 84(1) of the Act to
decide whether Sri Manjunatha temple was a temple as defined in
olause (2) of section 9 of the Act.
Heggade urged before the Boar~,
_ inter alia, that all the institutions in Dharmasthal formed a single umt
representing a private institution,
that it had been founded by his
ancestors on their own private land, that there was no dedication to
the Hindus and they could not claim any right of worship,
that
Dharmasthal was Jain in character, that it was a charitable but not a
religi~us institution, that his status was not akiri to that of a mere
trustee and that "Heggadeship" was intimately and insep..irately connected with the Dharmasthal institution and Manjunatha temple.
The.Board made an enquiry and reached the
conclusion
that
Marijunatha temple was a separate entity and was the most importan!
institution and that it was not the private property of the Heggade.
It also held that it was not a Jain institution, but was a Hindu temple,
and that it· was a religious and not merely a charitable institution fof
its charity was connected with the temple. The Board also held that
the public had used the temple freely ever since its foundation.
It
accordingly decided that Man_iunatha was a temple as defined in the
Act even though its trusteeship vested in Heggades who were fains.
As has been stated, an application was made by Manjayya Hegde
to the District Judge,-under sub-section (2) of section 84 of the Act
for setting aside the Board's decision. It was specifically pleaded in
that application that the entire institution known as Dharmasthal ·was
a "composite" institution and that his ancestors a·lways claimed that
the Manjunatha Devaru, its properties and deities belonged to them
personally and that its 'patta' stood in- their names from time immemorial.
On that basis, it was pleaded further that as the propertioo
were outside the scope of the enquiry under section 84 of the Act, the
Act "did not apply and the Board had no jurisdiction to hold an
enquiry under section 84."
A counter•affidavit was filed on behalf of
th:e Board in which it was pleaded that Manjunatha temple of Dharmasthal was "an independent entity· being a separate temple, owning its
own property and having separate income."
It· was pleaded further
that there were properties in the name of the deity of the Manjunatha
in Mysore State -and other places.
The District Judge did not frame
any·issued but formulated some· points for determination including the
points whether Manjunatha Devaru was only a part of the institution
known as Dhannasthal, and nof a separate institution in itself, ·and
whether the provisions of the Act did nof apply to it ?
He recorded
the evidence and held that Manjunatha temple was one of the 3 or 4
shrines maintained from the income of the institution known as Dharmasthal, Heggade was a component part of the institution. the temple
stood on the private land' of Heggade. the Manjimatha shririe was a
Hindu institution but h -was so mixed up and connected with other
Jain institutions· that it was practically impossible to separate it, and
that Dharmasthal was a happy blending of charity and religion. r_he
District Judge held further that the Manjunatha shrine was the private
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
A
B
c
D
E
G
H
894
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 1 S.C.R.
temple of the Heggade, it had not been dedicated to the Hindu public,
and it ~as not used by the _Public as of right.
The District Judge did
not decide whether the shnne of Ammanvaru and other deities was a
Jain institution.
He accordingly held that though the
Manjunatha
shrine may be a Hindu shrine, it was private property of the Heggade
and the provisions of the Act were not applicable to it.
The District
Judge accordingly set aside the order of the Board dated March 9,
1949.
The Commissioner filed an appeal to the High Court against that
judgment of the District Judge dated November 9, 1956. One of the
main questions presented for determination before the High Court was
whether "all the institutions" of Dharmasthal formed a single com{1osite
institution. It was not in dispute before the High Court that, apart from
the question of Manjunatha temple being an adjunct to the composite
Dharmasthal institution, the temple was not an institution at all~ Even
the Heggade did not deny the existence of Manjunatha temple as· an
institution and took the specific plea in his affidavit dated July 22, 1949
that the Manjunatha Deity "is a private institution belonging to the
Heggade." The High Court examined the "crucial question" whether
Manjunatha was a temple within the definition of the Act and whether
it was a "Religious Endowment" under section 9 ( 11). It held that
the Manjunatha temple was an adjunct to the composite institution of
Dharmasthal and according to the customs and usages of the institution
that temple could not be separated from the rest of the institution,
that Dharmasthal was both a religious and charitable institution, that
Manjunatha was a deity worshipped both by the Hindus and the Jains
in accordance with their respective faiths and that it was neither an
exclusively Hindu deity nm an exclusively Jain deity. The High Court
referred to the pleadings and the evidence and held that the institution
was founded by a Jain, its administration remained exclusively Jain
since its inception, and that as Jains also worshipped along with Hindus,
it could not be inferred that there was an implied de<lication to the
Hindus exclusively.
The High Court thus hcld that the temple was
not a temple as defined in the Act, and it was therefore not necessary
to examine the question whether it was a private temple of the Heggade.
In the result, the High Court took the view that the Act did not apply
to the institution and the Board had no jurisdiction over it. It therefore
dismissed the appeal with costs.
The Commissioner has obtained special leave, and this is how the
appeal has come up here for consideration.
As the controversy in this case relates to the applicability of the
Act to the Manjunatha temple, it will be convenient to examine its
relevant provisions.
The preamble of the Act states, inter alia, that it is meant to
provide for the better administration and governance of "certain Hindu
religious endowments" de~cribed in. it.
~~ction 2 makes it, clear. that
the Act applies "to all Hmdu pubhc rehg10us endowments'. Pnvate
religious endowments are therefore outside its scope.
Then there is
an Explanation to the following effect,-
'
-\_
l
..... __
-\
COMM. FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS v. RATNAVARMA (Shinghal, !.) 895
"Explanation,-for the purpose of this Act, Hindu
A
public religious endowments do not include Jain religious
endowments."
The effect of the section therefore is to exclude not only private religious
_endowments, but also Jain religious endowments and it is around the
provisions of section 2 that the controversy in this case has centred.
The exclusion of Jain religious endowments has been emphasised by
B
section 3 (b) which empowers the Local Government to remove the
exclusion and extend the provisions of the Act, and the Rules framed
theretmder, to Jain religious endowments, subject to such restrictions
and modifications as may be considered proper.
As no such extension
has been notified, the Act does not cover Jain religious endowments.
It is coifined to Hindu religious "endowments" and will not be applicable where there is no such endowment at all.
c
The expression "Religious endowment" or "Endowment" has been
defined in clause (ii) of section 9 as follows,-
"( 11) 'Religious endowment' or 'Endowment' means all
property belonging to, or given or endowed for the support
of maths or temples or for the performance of any service
or charity connected therewith and includes the premises of
maths or temples but does not inolude gifts of property made
as personal gifts or offerings to the head of a math or to
the archaka or other employee of a temple."
It follows that "all property" belonging to, or given or endowed for
the support of a temple or for the performance of any service or charity
connected with the temple will constitute its endowment, including the
premises of the temple.
It would therefore be necessary to examine
whether there is evidence to prove any such endowment in· respe1:t of
Sri Manjunatha temple.
In this connection it will be necessary to
examine which property, if any, was endowed to the temple, and by
whom, and which, if any, could be said to be the premises of the
temple to the exclusion of all other temples ?
The expression "Temple" has been defined by clause (12) of
section 9 in these terms,-
" (l2) 'Temple' me:ans a place, by whatever designation
known, used .as a place of public worship and dedicated to,
or for the benefit of, or used as of right by, the Hindu community, or any section thereof,
as a place
of
religious
worship."
The definition thus emphasises that only those temples will fa11 within
the purview of the Act which are places of "public religious worship"
and are "dedicated" to, or for the benefit of, or are used "as of right"
by the Hindu community.
It may be mentioned in this connection that, as has been stated,
the District Judge has held that although the Manjunatha temple may
be a Hindu temple, it is the private temple of the Heggade and is not
a temple expressly dedicated to Hindus or a temple which could be
D
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
G
H
896
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 1 S.C.R.
said to. have been used or resorted to by the Hindu public as of right.
The I-l_1gh ~ourt has, on appeal, held on the other hand, that Manjuna~ha 1s n~1t~er an exclusively Hindu deity nor an exclusively Jain deity
and that 1t 1s not therefore a temple as defined in the Act.
It has
th~refore not examined the other question whether it is a public or a
pnvate temple.,
As regards the property of the temple, the High Court
has· h~ld that 1t is .an "adjunct" to the composite institution consisting
of. Hmdu and Jam Gods and Daivas worshipped by Hindus and
Jams.
•
Counsel for the parties have argued at length on the questions
whether Manjunatha temple is an exclusively Hindu temple and whe ..
ther it is a place of public religious worship dedicated to ~r used
as of right by the Hindu community as a place of religious worship.
There is considerable evidence for deciding these questions, but even
if it were assumed that the answer to these questions should be in the
affirmative, that would not be decisive of the controversy, for the other
question would still remain whether it is an "endowment" ? It will
be recalled that by virtue of section 2, the Act applies only to Hindu
public religious "endowments."
The definition of "Religious endowment" and "Endowment" in
clause ( 11) of section is common.
Accordingly, the questions which
arise for consideration in this connection are whether the temple has
property belonging to, or given or endowed for its support or for the
performance of any service or charity connected therewith. It has not
been disputed before us, and is in fact beyond controversy, that there
is considerable movable and immovable property of the Dharmasthal
as a whole i.e. the entire complex or campus consisting of Nclleyadi
Beedu, Chandranath Basthi, Manjunatha temple, Ammanvam temple
and the Heggadeship.
But the question is whether there is any such
property exclusively of the Manjunatha temple so as to constitute a
Hindu religious endowment for purposes of section 2 of the Act ?
It wiU be recalled that it is not in dispute here that it were the
"Daivas" who were first established in Nelleyadi Beedu
and
were
worshipped there by an ancestor of Heggade who was a Jain.
The
High Court has in fact found that it has been clearly c:stablished by
the evidence on the record that the institution was founded by a Jain
and that ever since its inception its administration has remained in
the hands of a Jain, namely, the Heggade.
So whel'I. Vadiraja Swamiar
of Sode Mutt, Udipi, came there as mentioned earlier, there was only
worship of Jain "Daivas" and of "no God".
This is to be found in
the report (Ex. A 108) of T. Narayan Nambiyar in the matter of the
Manjunatha temple, which was taken in evidence and has been relied
upon by the High Court. It was at the instance of the Swamiar that
the idol of Manjunatha was brought and installed in the "garbagriha"
and it was he who performed the first 'pooja'. It was therefore the
Swamiar who was responsible for the installation of the Manj.unatha
idol, which was a 'lingam', in a campus where the~e were shrmes of
Devas like Nelleyadi Beedu, the Chandranatha Basth1 and several other
buildings. It could not therefore be said that the mere installation of
the idol of Manjunatha brought into existence any such property as
I-
!-
-y
COMM. FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS v. RATNAVARMA (Shinghal, J.) 89 7
\
•
.could be said to belong to that deity or given or endowed for the
A
support of its temple or for the performance of any service or charity
.connected therewith.
There is, on the other hand, evidence to show that all the building~
and institutions of the Dharmasthal, which was the composite name
of the entire campus or complex consisting of the buildings mentioned
in plan Ex. A 59, were situated in the land belonging to the Heggade,
.and of which he held a 'patta'.
This is evident from Ex. A 103 which
is a certified copy of the statement of Kumara Heggade dated July 31,
1820,• which appears to have been read in evidence with the consent
of the parties.
To the same effect is the statement of U. Seetharamayya
dated October 12, 1954 who was acquainted .with Dharmasth&l since
1908.
~s it is, the Manjunatha temple does not have even a separate
"prakaram''.
The shrine of Ammanvaru is in close proximity of the
Manjunatha temple and within the same "prakaram''.
It has not been
disputed before us that, as has been stated by
U. Seetharamayya,
P.W. 2, its important deities are Kalarahu, Kalarhayi, Kumaraswami
and Kanya Kumari some of which, at any rate, are the same as the
Jain deities worshipped in Nelleyadi Beedu and Badinade both of which
are admittedly Jain institutions. Moreover, Kanya Kumari in Ammanvaru shrine cannot be said to be Parvati, the consort of Shiva, for
M. Govinda Pai R.W. 12, who claims to have studied Hindu and
Jain religions and was examined on behalf of the Board, hag stated
that Parvati and Kanya Kumari are "not identical".
The shrine of
Annappa Daiva is also situated within the common "prakaram". The
existence of the shrines of Ammanvaru and Annappa Daiva in the
same "prakaram" as the Manjunatha temple therefore
shows
that
Manjunatha temple cannot even claim to have any exclusive premises
of its own so as to constitute an endowment within the meaning of
.clause (11) of section 9 of the Act.
The High Court has found it as a iact that the shrine of Manjunatha
is an "adjunct" to the composite institution of Dha1J11asthal and
according to the customs and usages of the said institution, the shrine
of Sri Manjunatha cannot be separated from the rest.
In arriving at
B
c
D
E
this condusion the High Court has taken into consideration those facts
F
which have been established by the evidence on the record. It will
be sufficient to make a brief reference to the following 14 facts which
have been mentioned by the High Court,-
(i) All the sluines in Dharmasthal were founded by the Heggade
who was a Jain.
(ii) All the shrines are situated in close proximity on "wrag" lands
G
of Which the 'patta' is in the name of Heggade.
(iii) The rituals of all the shrines are interconnected.
(iv) All places of worship participate in the installation of the
'Heggade (Exs. A 58 and A 108).
(v) The 'pooja' is reciprocal e.g. whenever there is an important
H
ceremony in Manjunatha shrine, special 'pooja' has to be performed
in Chandranatha Basthi which is a Jain institution (Ex. A 108).
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
898
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 1 S.C.R.
(vi) All 'prasadam' is normally given only from
Ammanvaru
shrine and not (rom Manjunatha temple, (P. Ws. 3, 4 and 5).
(vii) The festivals, including that relating to "makara shankranti",.
of all the shrines, are comrrion (P.W.2 and exhibits A 69 and A 70).
(viii) All offerings are made and received for the entire institution
and not for any particular deity (Exs. A 69, A 70 and A 108),
and the public do not make any distinction in making the offerings
and whatever is given is for Dharmasthal as a whole (Ex. A 108).
(ix) On Heggade's death, 'pooja' is stopped in all institutions until
purification (Ex. A 108).
•
(x) "Hoilus" or complaints are made to Dhannastlial as a whole
and 'prasadam' is given to the complaiqants from Ammanvar•1 shrine
(Ex. A 72).
(xi) Chandranatha Basthi, which is a Jain institution,· is closely
interlinked with all the other institutions in Dharmasthal.
(xii) The paraphernalia of "Daivas" (who are Jain deities) is
kept in Manjunatha and Ammanvaru shrines (Ex. A 108).
(xiii) There is extraordinary unity of interest between the Heggade
and Dharmasthal (Exs. A 107 and A 103) and no distinction is made
between the office of Heggade and the deities (Ex. A 104).
(xiv) The deities which had been installed before the installation
of the 'lingam' in the Manjunatha temple continued to enjoy their
previous importance (Ex. A 105) and Dharmasthal could not be said
to have been dedicated to Man junatha but to the earlier deities.
To the above may be added the following further facts,-
(i) The entire income of all the institutions constitutes one common
fund from which the expenses of all the shrines and the Heggade are
met (Report Ex. B 2 of R.W. 3).
(ii) The vast charity which is undertaken was in existence even
before the installation of the 'lingam' in Manjunatha shrine (P.W. 3).
(iii) While the 'lingam' was installed in Manjunatha temple by
Vadiraja Swamiar of Sode Mutt, Udipi, as an exclusively Hitidu God,
in its present "garbagriha" which exclusively contains that 'lingam' and
has no non-Hindu God, the Jain Daivas have continued to be worshipped side by side, in the adjacent Ammanvaru shrine. Even in the
presence of the Swamiar, the Heggade was prese9t at the time of
worship and offered 'Kanikam' (R.W. 9). Whosoever went to Dharmasthal, whether a Hindu or a Jain worshipped Manjunatha and the
other deities and Daivas alike (Ex. A 108).
(iv) It may be that Brahmins perform 'pooja' in Manjunatha
temple, but that is done in the presence of the Heggade (R.W. 11)
who also worships Manjunatha and controls all the institutions as one
integral Dhannasthal.
(v) The Jain shrine of Anna Daiva is also
within
the same
'prakaram' in which the temples of Manjunatha and Ammanvaru are·
situated.
·-
(
COMM. FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS v. RATNAVARMA (Shinghal, J.) 899
It therefore appears that the High Court was justified in taking
the view that Manjunatha temple is part and parcel of the composite
institution known as Dharmasthal and is so inseparably connected with
it that it is its integral part.
It cannot th'erefore be held that the
Manj unatha temple is an "endowment" within the meaning of clause
( 11) of section 9 of the Act for it has not been proved that any
,property belongs to it, or has been given or endowed for its support
or for the performance of any service or charity connected therewith,
or that it has any such premises of its own as could be said to form
its ciwn endowment.
It \:ould follow from what has been said above that even if the
Manjunatha temple is assumed to be a place used, as of right, for
public rel~ious worship by Hindus, it could come under the purview
of the Act only if it could be established that it was a
'religious
endowment' within the meaning of section 2, but this has ·not been
proved to be so. On the other hand it appears that the present institution of Dharmasthal was originally a Jain rnligious and charitable institution to which property was endowed by the ancestors of the present
Heggade who was himself a Jain.
It· was that endowment which
spread and gained more and more importance over the years because
of the offerings made largely by Hindu and Jain devotees and worshippers.
But it has not been established that there is any. endowment
which could be said to belong exclusively to Manjunatha temple. Even
if any such endowment was made by some one in the name of Manjunatha temple (as stated by K. C. Nambayar R.W. 3), it was taken
to be an endowment for the entire institution known as Dharmasthal
and wa.s treated as such.
The Manjunatha temple cannot therefore
be said to be a Hindu religious endowment within the meaning,_ of
section 2.
The provisions of the Act are not applicable to it, and
the Board clearly erred in holding otherwise.
It has been argued by Mr. Chowdhary for the appellant that generally speaking Hindus include Jains. According to him, the underlying
assumption in the Act is that Jains are also Hindus, and that the
fact that Jains also worship in a Hindu temple will not detract from
the fact that it is a HindJ.1 temple as it is not necessary that a Hindu
temple should be a place exclusively for Hindu public religious worsh:p.
Reference in this connection has been made to The All India Sai Samaj
(Registered) by its President D. Bhima Rao, Mylapore v. The Deputy
Commissioner for
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
(Admini.frration) De;;artment, Madras-34, and others,( 1 ) The State of
Madras by the Secretary, Revenue Department, Madras and another
v. The Urumu Seshachalam Chettiar Charities, Tiruchirapalli, by its
Board of Trustees and others,( 2 ) and S. Kannan and others v. The All
India Sai Samaj (Registered) by its
President,
D.
Bhima
Rao,
Mylapore(3). It will be sufficient to say that what section 9(12) of
the Act requires by way of definition of a 'temple' is that for purposes
of the Act a 'temple' should be dedicated for public religious worship,
as of right, and it would not detract from its character as such if Jains
also worship there.
The argument of Mr. Chowdhary is, however,
(1) (1967) 2 M.LJ. 618.
(2) (1960) 2 M.LJ. 591.
(3) (1974) 1 M.LJ. 174.
A.
B
D
E
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
H
900
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 1 S.C.R.
futile because, as has been mentioned, the provisions of the Act will
no_t be attracted to the Manjunatha temple in the absence of any
evidence to prove the existence of an endowment for it.
It h~s next been argued by Mr. Chowdhary that unless the temple
of Man1unatha could be shown to be a Jain endowment it would come
within the definition ~f 'temple' in the Act.
This arg~ment has only
to be stated to be re1ectcd because, as has been shown, there is no
evidence to show that there is any endowment for the Manjumitha
temple as such, and the temple is a part and parcel of Dharmasthul
which came to be endowed in the facts and circumstances n~ntioned
above.
An ancillary argument has been made that an inference of Hindu
endowment for the benefits of the Public should be drawn frolh the facts
that the deity
belongs to the Hindu Trinity, the architecture of the
temple is that of a Hindu temple, the rituals are performed bv Brahmins
according to Hindu form of worship and honey is used for "abhisheka"
which is contrary to the Jain form of worship.
We have already
assumed that the temple possesses the characteristics which make it a
Hindu temple, but even so there is no justification for the argument
that there is any endowment for it as such.
Then it has been argued by Mr. Chowdhary that Manjunatha temple
is not an "adjunct" to the composite institution of Dharmasthal for it
is the most important temple in the campus.
It has been urged that
mere common management and control cannot justify the argument
that Manjunatha temple is an inseparable part of the .Dharmastlml.
It is not necessary to examine this argument once again, for we have
given our reasons for taking a contrary view.
Another argument of Mr. Chowdhary is that formal dedication of
the endowment to the temple of Manjunatha was not necessary and
that its user by the Hindus as of right would be enough to prove the
initial dedication.
Reliance for the argument has been placed on
B. K.