Supreme Court of India
Siddaraja Manicka Prabhu Temple vs The Idol Of Arulmighu Kamakala … on 13 September, 2024
Author: Abhay S. Oka
Bench: Abhay S. Oka
2024 INSC 695
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. 8374 OF 2024
SRI SIDDARAJA MANICKA
PRABHU TEMPLE … APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE IDOL OF ARULMIGHU KAMAKALA
KAMESHWARAR TEMPLE ... RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
1. The challenge in this Appeal pertains to the Judgment
dated 26.10.2017 passed by the Division Bench of the
High Court of Judicature at Madras (hereinafter
referred to as the “Madras High Court”) in Original
Side Appeal No. 272 of 2011, whereby the appeal
preferred by the Appellant-Defendant was dismissed.
2. The relevant facts for the purpose of adjudication of
the present challenge are succinctly enumerated as
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Anita Malhotra
follows. The subject matter in question comprises of
Date: 2024.09.13
17:38:01 IST
Reason:
Civil Appeal No. 8374 of 2024 Page 1 of 22
an immovable property located adjacent to the
Respondent-Plaintiff-Temple, namely, Kamakala
Kameshwarar Temple (hereinafter referred to as the
“suit property” or “Schedule ‘A’ property”). The suit
property and the Respondent-Plaintiff-Temple were
owned by one late Rai Raja Eswardoss Diawanth
Bahadur. On his death, the properties dwelled upon
his son Mr. T. Lakshmidoss and his grandson Mr. T.
Venkataprasad. They were declared as insolvents vide
Order dated 27.04.1914 passed by the Madras High
Court. In pursuance thereto, the Official Assignee
became the possessor of the properties in the said
authority.
3. Thereupon, Mr. T. Lakshmidoss and Mr. T.
Venkataprasad arrived at an arrangement with the
creditors and with the intent of annulling the
declaration of their insolvency obtained a Decree
dated 31.12.1915. According to the said decree, the
Official Assignee was required to divide the estate
between the said two insolvents in the proportion of
three-fourth and one-fourth respectively, subject to
clearance of the amounts due to the creditors. For the
purposes of making payments of such outstanding
Civil Appeal No. 8374 of 2024 Page 2 of 22
dues, Mr. T. Lakshmidoss and Mr. T. Venkataprasad
agreed to sell some of their properties, including the
suit property. The said sale was made in favour of one
Mr. W. Ramakrishna Lala for an amount of INR
1,10,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Ten Thousand only).
Consequently, two Conveyance-cum-Sale Deeds
dated 23.03.1917 were executed in favour of Mr. W.
Ramakrishna Lala, who executed a Trust Deed dated
12.12.1917 appointing three trustees by name, Mr.
M.S. Anantha Ram Lala, Mr. A.S. Subba Rao and Mr.
C. Ranganadhan Nayudu (proprietor of creditor-
company, namely, M/s Dowden and Company). As
stipulated under the said Trust Deed, these trustees
were empowered to sell all the properties except for
the family house which is the suit property. Also, the
income derived from the properties was required to be
distributed between Mr. T. Lakshmidoss and Mr. T.
Venkataprasad in a ratio of 3:1.
4. On 07.02.1924, Mr. T. Lakshmidoss and Mr. T.
Venkataprasad were adjudged as insolvents for the
second time resulting in vesting of the possession of
the properties again in the Official Assignee. An
Agreement dated 15.09.1925 came to be entered into
Civil Appeal No. 8374 of 2024 Page 3 of 22
with the creditors where the three trustees were also
associated. The suit seeking specific performance of
the said Agreement dated 15.09.1925 was preferred
by the creditors namely, M/s Devakinandan Dubey
and Sons where apart from the debtors, the
aforementioned three trustees were impleaded as
defendants. The said suit was decreed in favour of the
creditors vide Compromise Decree dated 26.11.1929.
To the said decree were appended three separate
schedules which were marked as Schedule ‘A’ which
comprised of the suit property, Schedule ‘B’
encompassed the properties which stood excluded
from the Trust dated 12.12.1917, and Schedule ‘C’
relating to the Respondent-Plaintiff-Temple. It is this
Decree dated 26.11.1929 which holds the key with
regard to the nature of the property which is a subject
matter of the present lis.
5. Pursuant to the terms of the said decree, the Official
Assignee along with the two insolvents, and Mr. W.
Ramakrishna Lala executed a Conveyance Deed
bearing No. 1113 of 1931 for the transfer of the suit
property enumerated in Schedule ‘A’ subject to
certain cogent conditions and another Conveyance
Civil Appeal No. 8374 of 2024 Page 4 of 22
Deed bearing No. 1114 of 1931 comprising of the
Respondent-Plaintiff-Temple stipulated in the
Schedule ‘C’, in favour of the then spiritual head of
the Guru Manicka Prabhu Temple and his successors
in office.
6. Subsequently, a set of proceedings was initiated by
the Appellant-Defendant in 1954 whereby an
application being O.A. No. 76 of 1954 was moved
before the Deputy Commissioner of Hindu Religious
and Charitable Endowments (hereinafter referred to
as the “HR & CE”) seeking hereditary trusteeship in
the Respondent-Plaintiff-Temple. The said application
was initially allowed, however, in an appeal the same
was reversed vide Order dated 31.12.1954. A suit
bearing Original Suit No. 557 of 1955 assailing the
said decision of the appellate authority preferred by
the Appellant-Defendant also met the same fate of
dismissal and so was the appeal, being A.S. No. 14 of
1960, moved thereafter.
After the decision of the appeal, an application being
C.M.P. No. 5404 of 1962 for withdrawal of suit was
filed with a plea that the claim of the hereditary
Civil Appeal No. 8374 of 2024 Page 5 of 22
trusteeship was made by mistake and that the
Respondent-Plaintiff-Temple was his private property.
7. It is thereafter that in April 1962 another application
being O.A. No. 38 of 1962 was preferred before the
Deputy Commissioner of HR & CE putting forth a
claim that the Respondent-Plaintiff-Temple was a
private temple. The said application was dismissed
vide Order dated 04.10.1963 and an appeal assailing
the said order was also dismissed. Subsequently, the
Appellant-Defendant preferred a civil suit being
Original Suit No. 547 of 1965 to overturn these
orders. The said suit was decreed, and a declaration
as prayed for that Kamakala Kameshwarar Temple
being the Respondent-Plaintiff-Temple herein was a
private temple was granted vide Judgment dated
10.02.1965. The decree was affirmed in an appeal.
Thereupon, an Appeal being L.P.A. No. 119 of 1983,
preferred before a Division Bench of the Madras High
Court by the Respondent-Plaintiff was allowed vide
Judgment dated 04.04.1990, thereby setting aside
the decree of declaration in favour of the Appellant-
Defendant and consequently declaring the
Respondent-Plaintiff-Temple as a public temple.
Civil Appeal No. 8374 of 2024 Page 6 of 22
Further, a challenge to the said decision before this
Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 326
of 1991 was dismissed vide Order dated 07.10.1991.
Consequently, the Judgment dated 04.04.1990 of the
Division Bench of the Madras High Court attained
finality and the Respondent-Plaintiff Kamakala
Kameshwarar Temple became a public temple.
8. With this the claim as regards the Appellant-
Defendant in the present proceedings came to an end
with the opening up of a new chapter which emerged
with the filing of a suit being Original Suit No. 921 of
1999 by the Respondent-Plaintiff in the Madras High
Court, wherein the Respondent-Plaintiff herein
sought a declaration of being the absolute owner of
the plaint schedule property with a direction for the
delivery of possession thereof. The learned Single
Judge of the Madras High Court proceeded to hold
vide its Judgment dated 26.04.2011 that the suit
property is a trust property whilst relying on the
contents of the Compromise Decree dated 26.11.1926
and the conveyance deeds executed in pursuance
thereof. The High Court, upon perusal of the
conditions encapsulated in the said compromise
Civil Appeal No. 8374 of 2024 Page 7 of 22
decree and the admissions made by the Appellant-
Defendant in his cross-examination, concluded that
the suit property along with other properties
contained in Schedule ‘C’ of the said decree was
conveyed to the Appellant-Defendant for the purposes
of utilisation of income thereof for a limited object of
maintenance and upkeep of the Respondent-Plaintiff-
Temple as well as the Guru Manicka Prabhu Temple.
Moreover, the High Court noted that the Appellant-
Defendant forfeited his position as a trustee over the
suit property, as well as the Respondent-Plaintiff-
Temple upon failure to utilise the income for the
aforesaid restricted purpose and rather
misappropriating such funds for personal use.
Consequently, the Court required the Appellant-
Defendant to handover the possession of the suit
property to the Respondent-Plaintiff. Accordingly, the
suit was decreed as sought for by the Respondent-
Plaintiff.
9. The Appellant-Defendant being aggrieved by the
aforesaid decision of learned Single Judge preferred
an appeal being Original Appeal No. 272 of 2011
before the Division Bench of the Madras High Court,
Civil Appeal No. 8374 of 2024 Page 8 of 22
which was dismissed vide Impugned Judgment dated
26.10.2017 holding therein that the suit property is a
trust property and if the Appellant-Defendant was in
its possession, it was only as a trustee and not as an
absolute owner. The reasons for arriving at such
conclusion was a comprehensive analysis of the terms
of transfer of the suit property stipulated in the
Compromise Decree dated 26.11.1929 conspicuously
paragraph numbers 01 to 04, 11, and 13, as also the
subsequent conduct of the Appellant-Defendant in
pursuing multiple proceedings whilst maintaining the
claim for hereditary trusteeship till 1962 and the
absence of any sale consideration backing the claim
of absolute vesting in favour of the Appellant-
Defendant. Such perusal of the documents
incentivised the Division Bench to adjudge the suit
property as one belonging to the trust. Moreover, the
Division Bench unequivocally rejected the argument
that the proceedings were barred by the principle of
res judicata considering the previous proceedings
which declared an adjacent property, namely, the
Respondent-Plaintiff-Temple to be a public temple, as
relating to an issue distinct from the present
Civil Appeal No. 8374 of 2024 Page 9 of 22
proceedings, which do not impact the nature of the
suit property herein.
10. Assailing the judgment of the Division Bench of the
Madras High Court, the Appellant-Defendant has
approached this Court in the present Appeal. It is the
case of the Appellant-Defendant that the Respondent-
Plaintiff had neither presented any pleadings or
evidence, nor raised any issue claiming the suit
property as a trust property. Bereft of such pleadings,
it is the submission that the High Court ought not to
have decided on the issue as to the nature of the suit
property. In addition, it was contended that the suit
filed by the Respondent-Plaintiff before the learned
Single Judge of the Madras High Court did not adhere
to the requirements contemplated under Section 92
of Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which specially deals
with suits against trusts, hence, bolstering the
contention that the suit property was never intended
to be conceived by the Respondent-Plaintiff to be a
trust property.
11. Furthermore, drawing reference from the contents of
the Compromise Decree dated 26.11.1929, the
Appellant-Defendant asserted that the suit property
Civil Appeal No. 8374 of 2024 Page 10 of 22
is not a trust property rather under his absolute
ownership as the said decree required modifications
to the Trust Deed dated 12.12.1917 in case the
property were to be a trust property, but no such
modifications were made, nor was any trust deed
executed and the Conveyance Deed made pursuant
thereto explicitly identifies the Appellant-Defendant
as the transferee with absolute ownership, not as a
trustee. Additionally, it was contended that the
responsibility for maintaining the temples would not
tantamount to limiting the vesting of the suit
property, rather such conditions are inconsistent and
void by virtue of Sections 10 and 11 of the Transfer of
Property Act 1882, and the property does not revert
after a set period. To buttress this contention, the
Appellant-Defendant submitted that the Trust Deed
of 1917 and the Conveyance Deed thereto did not
confer the status of a trustee to the spiritual head of
Guru Manicka Prabhu Temple.
12. Per contra, it is the case of the Respondent-Plaintiff
that the Appellant-Defendant initially claimed title
over the suit property as a hereditary trustee but later
asserted that the Respondent-Plaintiff-Temple is a
Civil Appeal No. 8374 of 2024 Page 11 of 22
private entity. The issue of whether the Respondent-
Plaintiff-Temple is public or private has been
previously addressed in the proceedings bearing LPA
No. 119 of 1983, and the same issue is being re-
litigated now. It was, therefore, asserted by the
Respondent-Plaintiff that the suit property and
Respondent-Plaintiff-Temple being identical
properties to the properties enumerated in the
Compromise Decree dated 26.11.1929, the present
proceedings, being subsequent proceedings, is barred
by the principle of res judicata.
13. Furthermore, it is the case of the Respondent-Plaintiff
that post taking over of the possession of the temple
by the HR & CE from the Appellant-Defendant, it has
maintained the suit property and managed it as a
public temple since 1946, consequently, asserting
that the Respondent-Plaintiff-Temple being a declared
public institution under HR & CE’s stewardship, the
property should remain under Respondent-Plaintff’s
management to protect public worship and ensure
proper maintenance.
14. Having heard the learned Senior Advocate for the
Appellant-Defendant and the Counsel for the
Civil Appeal No. 8374 of 2024 Page 12 of 22
Respondent-Plaintiff, it is pertinent to adjudge the
present challenge in light of the aforementioned
chronology of facts and proceedings.
15. Considering the submissions made by the parties
herein and the factual backdrop as has been
delineated in the earlier part of the judgment which is
not being repeated for brevity, it is evident that the
present challenge relating to the title over the suit
property rests on the interpretation of terms and
conditions enumerated under the Compromise
Decree dated 26.11.1929. The Appellant-Defendant
posits absolute ownership over the suit property
obverse to the claim of the Respondent-Plaintiff being
the persistent nature of suit property as trust
property. Therefore, it is apposite to delve into a
comprehensive analysis of the relevant paragraph
numbers 01 to 04, 11, and 13 of the Compromise
Decree dated 26.11.1929, as has been reproduced by
the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in
paragraph number 12 (vii) of the Impugned Judgment
which reads as follows:
(1) “That the provisions of the Trust deed
dated the 12th day of December 1917 shallCivil Appeal No. 8374 of 2024 Page 13 of 22
attach only to the property described in
Schedule “A” hereto and even in so far as
those properties shall immediately be
incested (sic: Vested) in Sri Guru
Marthanda Manicka Guru as Head of the
Guru Manicka Prabhu Temple and his
successors in office as Head of the said
Temple, subject to the condition that the
net worth (sic: monthly) income from the
said properties ascertained after payment
of repairs and taxes, as and when the
same accrues be applied and utilised by
the said Sri Guru Marthanda Manicka
Prabhu for the maintenance of the
defendants Nos. 7 and 8 and of the
survivor of them, during their lifetime.
(2) That after the death of the survivor of the
7th and 8th defendants the head of the said
Guru Manicka Prabhu Temple for the time
being do pay to Ponbati Bai (sic: Parvati
Bai) the sister of the 8th defendant during
the term of her natural life from and out of
the said income the sum of Rupees Forty
(Rs.40/-) per mensem and the balance of
the said income shall be utilised by him for
the purpose of the said temple.
Civil Appeal No. 8374 of 2024 Page 14 of 22
(3) That after the death of the said Ponbati Bai
(sic: Parvati Bai) the said premises and the
income thereof shall absolutely vest in the
Guru of the said temple for the time being
and be utilised for the maintenance and
upkeep of the said Manicka Prabhu Gadi
and the Kamakala Kameswarar Temple
founded by the late Rai Raja Eswaradas
Daiwanth Bahadur, the father of the 7th
defendant, and situated in Raja
Hanumantha Lala Street, Triplicane,
Madras.
(4) That the remaining properties includes (sic:
included) in the said. trust deed dated the
12th day of December 1927 (sic – 1917)
and (in) particular set out in schedule “B”
here to be and are hereby exonerated from
the said Trust and that the said properties
are the absolute properties of the 7th and
8th defendants, and they have already
vested in the 2nd defendant.
xxxx
(11) That for the purposes of giving effect to
paragraph 1 of this decree, the 2nd and 3rd
defendants shall execute in favour of the
spiritual Head of the Guru Manicka
Prabhu Temple a conveyance of theCivil Appeal No. 8374 of 2024 Page 15 of 22
properties set out in schedule “A” hereto
and the said spiritual Head of the said
temple shall execute in favour of the 6th
defendant a power of attorney
empowering him to manage the properties
set out in schedule “A” hereto during the
life of the 7th and 8th defendants and the
survivor of them and the said Parbati Bai
(sic: Parvati Bai) and for the purpose of
making the payment set out in paragraphs
1 and 2 above and during such time the
said 6th defendant shall hold possession
of the said premise.
xxxx
(13) That the 2nd, 7th and 8th defendants shall
execute in favour of the spiritual Head of
the said Kamakala Kameswarar Temple a
Conveyance of the building comprising the
said temple and the land on which the
same is situate more particularly
described in schedule “C” hereto that the
application of the monthly income from the
properties set out in schedule “A” in the
manner indicated above shall be in the
nature of a provision for maintenance and
the said income shall not be liable to be
alienated or anticipated (sic: appropriated)
by the 7th and 8th defendants or the said
Civil Appeal No. 8374 of 2024 Page 16 of 22
Parbati Bai (sic: Parvati Bai) to be attached
or proceeded against by the creditors of
the 7th and 8th defendants and the said
Parbati Bai (sic: Parvati Bai)….”
16. A perusal of the above would show that the provisions
of the Trust Deed dated 12.12.1917 were restricted to
property described in Schedule ‘A’, that is, the suit
property herein. The said property would forthwith
vest in Shri Guru Marthanda Manicka Prabhu as the
head of the Guru Manicka Prabhu Temple and his
successors in office. The monthly income as would be
derived from the said property after payment of
repairs and taxes in relation to the temple would be
utilized for Mr. T. Lakshmidoss and Mr. T.
Venkataprasad during their lifetime.
17. As stipulated in paragraph number 02 of the decree,
post the death of Mr. T. Lakshmidoss and Mr. T.
Venkataprasad, the head of the Guru Manicka
Prabhu Temple for the time being was to pay during
the lifetime a sum of INR 40/- (Rupees Forty only) per
month to Ms. Parvati Bai, being daughter of Mr. T.
Lakshmidoss and sister of Mr. T. Venkataprasad and
the remaining income had to be utilized for the
Civil Appeal No. 8374 of 2024 Page 17 of 22
purposes of the temple. After the death of Ms. Parvati
Bai, the Schedule ‘A’ property which is the suit
property as also the income derived therefrom would
vest absolutely in Guru of the Manicka Prabhu
Temple for the purpose of maintenance and upkeep
of Guru Manicka Prabhu Temple and Kamakala
Kameshwarar Temple, i.e. the Respondent-Plaintiff
Temple herein.
18. The remaining properties as mentioned in the Trust
Deed dated 12.12.1917 as provided for in Schedule
‘B’ were excluded from the trust as contemplated by
paragraph number 04 of the said decree. This can be
said with regard to the properties and their utilization
which are found in paragraph numbers 01 to 04.
19. Paragraph numbers 11 and 13 enumerate the steps
to be undertaken to give effect to the process of
rescheduling of the suit property out of properties
which formed part of the Trust Deed dated
12.12.1917, in other words, to materialize what was
contemplated by virtue of paragraph number 01 of the
decree. Paragraph number 11 specifically required
the Official Assignee and Mr. W. Ramakrishna Lala to
execute in favour of the spiritual head of the Guru
Civil Appeal No. 8374 of 2024 Page 18 of 22
Manicka Prabhu Temple a conveyance of properties
as spelt out in Schedule ‘A’. On this part, the spiritual
head of the Manika Prabhu Temple shall execute a
Power of Attorney in favour of Mr. C. Ranganathan
Nayudu, the proprietor of M/s Dowden and Company,
that is, the creditor’s company, to manage the
properties set out in Schedule ‘A’ during the lifetime
of Mr. T. Lakshmidoss and Mr. T. Venkataprasad as
also Ms. Parvati Bai for the purpose of executing the
terms of payment set out as mentioned in paragraph
numbers 01 and 02. It is during this period that the
creditor shall hold possession of the suit property.
20. Further, paragraph number 13 required the Official
Assignee, Mr. T. Lakshmidoss, and Mr. T.
Venkataprasad to execute a conveyance deed of the
building comprising of Kamakala Kameshwarar
Temple, i.e. the Respondent-Plaintiff-Temple herein
through its spiritual head qua the building
comprising the said temple including the land
situated thereon more particularly as described in
Schedule ‘C’ of the decree.
21. It is pertinent to emphasise herein that the income
derived from the properties set out in Schedule ‘A’ as
Civil Appeal No. 8374 of 2024 Page 19 of 22
also in Schedule ‘B’ were not to be alienated or
appropriated by Mr. T. Lakshmidoss, Mr. T.
Venkataprasad, and Ms. Parvati Bai nor could the
creditors proceed against the said schedule
properties.
In the above perspective, it is apparent that the said
properties as provided in Schedules ‘A’ and ‘C’ could
neither be alienated by any of the parties nor
proceeded against by the creditors. What in effect it
means is that they continue to be a part of the trust
property.
22. It would not be out of the way to mention here that
the parties to this decree acted upon the same as is
apparent from the two transfer deeds dated
28.08.1931 executed by the Official Assignee, Mr. T.
Lakshmidoss and Mr. T. Venkataprasad and Mr. W.
Ramakrishan Lala. Document bearing no. 1113 of
1931 (Exhibit D-1) was executed by Official Assignee
along with Mr. W. Ramkrishna Lala and Document
bearing No. 1114 of 1931 (Exhibit P-8) was executed
by the Official Assignee in favour of the spiritual head
of Guru Manicka Prabhu Temple.
Civil Appeal No. 8374 of 2024 Page 20 of 22
23. From the aforementioned analysis, it is apposite to
conclude that except for Schedule ‘B’ properties,
properties in Schedule ‘A’ and ‘C’ existed and
continued to be a part of the trust. This leads us to a
logical corollary that the head of the Guru Manicka
Prabhu Temple (Appellant-Defendant herein) could
hold the property in Schedule ‘A’ which is the suit
property as a trustee only, and not in any other
capacity.
24. Another plea raised by the Counsel with reference to
application of principle of res judicata for averring a
bar on the present proceedings was rightly rejected by
the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of
the Madras High Court on account of distinct nature
of claims in both proceedings, that is, previous
proceedings dealt with the issue of nature of
Respondent-Plaintiff-Temple as being public or
private temple, whereas the present proceedings
relate to a suit for declaration of title over the suit
scheduled property. It was rightly pointed out by the
learned Single Judge of the High Court that the
nature of the Respondent-Plaintiff-Temple would not
affect the obligations envisaged by the Compromise
Civil Appeal No. 8374 of 2024 Page 21 of 22
Decree dated 26.11.1926 in relation to the suit
scheduled property herein. Hence the challenge
raised in the earlier proceedings cannot be said to
impact the present litigation.
25. In light of the above, we are in agreement with the
judgment passed by the Division Bench of the Madras
High Court which is impugned herein. Consequently,
the present Appeal being devoid of merit is hereby
dismissed.
26. There shall be no order as to costs.
27. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
…………………………………….J.
(ABHAY S. OKA)
……………………………………..J.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 13, 2024.
Civil Appeal No. 8374 of 2024 Page 22 of 22