Supreme Court Upholds Temple’s Right Over Dedicated Jewelry: R.M. Sundaram vs. Sri Kayarohanasamy Temple (2022)

Date of the Judgment: July 11, 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 607

Judges: Justice Ajay Rastogi, Justice Sanjiv Khanna

Can a family claim ownership of jewelry that has been stored in a temple vault for generations, even if the jewelry is used to adorn the deity during festivals? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the Sri Kayarohanasamy and Neelayadhakshi Amman Temple. The court had to decide if the jewelry was a personal belonging or a specific endowment for the temple deity. This judgment clarifies the legal position on religious endowments and the rights of temples over donated items.

Case Background

The case revolves around a dispute over 26 items of jewelry, some embedded with diamonds and precious stones, stored in the ‘Kudavarai’ (safe vaults) of the Sri Kayarohanasamy and Neelayadhakshi Amman Temple. R.M. Sundaram, the appellant, claimed the jewelry as his personal property, inherited from his adoptive parents, Muthuthandapani Chettiar and M. Thangammal. He argued that his father had only licensed the jewelry to be kept in the temple vault, retaining ownership.

The temple, however, contended that the jewelry was a specific endowment, donated by the ancestors of Muthuthandapani Chettiar for adorning the deity, Sri Neelayadhakshi Amman, during the annual Adipooram festival. The temple asserted that the jewelry had been in their custody and use for centuries, and the family’s role was limited to the honor of opening the vault during the festival.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (the ‘1959 Act’). The Act defines a ‘religious endowment’ as property given for the support of temples or for any religious charity. A ‘specific endowment’ is defined as property endowed for a specific service or charity in a temple.

Section 6(17) of the 1959 Act defines “Religious endowment” or “endowment” as:

“all property belonging to or given or endowed for the support of maths or temples, or given or endowed for the performance of any service or charity of a public nature connected therewith or of any other religious charity; and includes the institution concerned and also the premises thereof, but does not include gifts of property made as personal gifts to the archaka, service holder or other employee of a religious institution”

Section 6(19) of the 1959 Act defines “specific endowment” as:

“any property or money endowed for the performance of any specific service or charity in a math or temple or for the performance of any other religious charity, but does not include an inam of the nature described in Explanation (1) to clause (17)”

The court also considered Section 29(d) of the 1959 Act, which mandates the preparation of a register for every religious institution, detailing “jewels, gold, silver, precious stones, vessels and utensils and other movables belonging to the institution, with their weights and estimated value.”

The concept of religious endowment was also examined, with the court noting that such an endowment can be created without specific ceremonies, as long as the intention to dedicate the property for religious use is clear.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant, R.M. Sundaram, claimed that the suit jewelry was his personal property, inherited from his adoptive parents, Muthuthandapani Chettiar and M. Thangammal.
• He argued that his father had only licensed the jewelry to be kept in the temple vault (Kudavarai) for safekeeping, retaining ownership and the right to revoke the license.
• The appellant contended that the undertaking given by his father on 4th October 1962, allowed him to maintain exclusive possession of the Kudavarai.
• He asserted that the jewelry was kept in the Kudavarai to avoid loss due to natural calamities, and he had the right to remove it to a place of his choice.
• The appellant argued that the temple’s claim was barred by res judicata and Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, because the temple had previously filed a suit for appointment of a receiver for the jewelry.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent, Sri Kayarohanasamy and Neelayadhakshi Amman Temple, contended that the suit jewelry was a specific endowment, donated by the ancestors of Muthuthandapani Chettiar for adorning the deity during the Adipooram festival.
• The temple asserted that the jewelry had been in their custody and use for centuries, and the family’s role was limited to the honor of opening the vault during the festival.
• The respondent argued that the jewelry was recorded as ‘Adipooram Ambal Thiru Abaranam’ in the temple register (Exhibit A-1), indicating its dedicated use for the deity.
• The temple maintained that the undertaking dated 4th October 1962 was never acted upon by Muthuthandapani Chettiar and did not create any right in favor of the appellant.
• The respondent contended that the suit jewelry was used only for the deity and not for the personal use of the family.

[TABLE] of Sub-Submissions:

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument that the jewelry was merely licensed for safekeeping and that he had the right to revoke the license was innovative, but it was ultimately rejected by the court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the suit jewellery constitutes a specific endowment in favour of the deity, Sri Neelayadhakshi Amman.
2. Whether the suit filed by the respondent/Temple for declaration was barred under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
3. Whether the suit filed by the appellant for mandatory injunction was maintainable.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on several authorities to reach its decision:

Cases:

• Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar and Others, AIR 1957 SC 133: This case established that the true beneficiaries of religious endowments are the worshippers, not the idols, and that endowments can be created without specific ceremonies if the intention is clear. The court used this to establish that the suit jewellery was a public endowment.
• The Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Mysore v. Sri Ratnavarma Heggade (Deceased) by his L.Rs., (1977) 1 SCC 525: This case held that dedications for religious purposes can be implied from user and conduct, and that religious ceremonies are not indispensable. The court used this to establish that the suit jewellery was a public endowment.
• M.R. Goda Rao Sahib v. State of Madras, (1966) 1 SCR 643: This case distinguished between absolute and partial dedications, stating that in an absolute dedication, the donor divests himself of all beneficial interests. The court used this to establish that the suit jewellery was a public endowment.
• Idol of Sri Renganathaswamy represented by its Executive Officer, Joint Commissioner v. P.K. Thoppulan Chettiar, Ramanuja Koodam Anandhana Trust, represented by its Managing Trustee and Others, (2020) 17 SCC 96: This case clarified the distinction between religious charities and private charities, emphasizing that religious charities benefit the public at large. The court used this to establish that the suit jewellery was a public endowment.
• M.J. Thulasiraman and Another v. Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Administration and Another, (2019) 8 SCC 689: This case elucidated the terms ‘endow’ and ‘endowment’ as relating to the act of giving or dedicating something for a religious or charitable purpose. The court used this to establish that the suit jewellery was a public endowment.
• Sheodan Singh v. Daryao Kunwar (SMT), AIR 1966 SC 1332: This case laid down the conditions for res judicata to apply, including that the matter must have been directly and substantially in issue in the former suit and the decision must have been on merits. The court used this to establish that res judicata does not apply in the present case.
• Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal, AIR 1964 SC 1810: This case clarified that for a plea under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the defendant must establish the cause of action of the previous suit. The court used this to establish that Order II Rule 2 does not apply in the present case.
• Virgo Industries (Eng.) Private Limited v. Venturetech Solutions Private Limited, (2013) 1 SCC 625: This case reiterated that the cause of action in a later suit must be the same as in the first suit for Order 2 Rules 2(2) and (3) CPC to apply. The court used this to establish that Order II Rule 2 does not apply in the present case.
• Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal and Another, (2008) 17 SCC 491: This case stipulated that a court cannot grant reliefs beyond the prayers made in the pleadings. The court used this to clarify the limits of the relief granted.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 6(17) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959: Definition of “Religious endowment” or “endowment”.
• Section 6(19) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959: Definition of “specific endowment”.
• Section 29(d) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959: Mandates the preparation of a register for every religious institution, detailing “jewels, gold, silver, precious stones, vessels and utensils and other movables belonging to the institution, with their weights and estimated value.”
• Section 63 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959: States that the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner has the power to enquire into and decide the disputes and matters concerning “whether any property or money is a religious endowment” and “whether any property or money is a specific endowment”.
• Section 69 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959: Provides for an appeal against the decision of the Joint or Deputy Commissioner to the Commissioner.
• Section 70 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959: Provides for a challenge to an order passed by the Commissioner before the court.
• Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Deals with the relinquishment of part of a claim.

[TABLE] of Authorities Considered by the Court:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar and Others [AIR 1957 SC 133]*: The court followed this case to establish that the true beneficiaries of religious endowments are the worshippers and that endowments can be created without specific ceremonies if the intention is clear.
• The Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Mysore v. Sri Ratnavarma Heggade (Deceased) by his L.Rs. [(1977) 1 SCC 525]*: The court followed this case to establish that dedications for religious purposes can be implied from user and conduct, and that religious ceremonies are not indispensable.
• M.R. Goda Rao Sahib v. State of Madras [(1966) 1 SCR 643]*: The court followed this case to distinguish between absolute and partial dedications and to establish that in an absolute dedication, the donor divests himself of all beneficial interests.
• Idol of Sri Renganathaswamy represented by its Executive Officer, Joint Commissioner v. P.K. Thoppulan Chettiar, Ramanuja Koodam Anandhana Trust, represented by its Managing Trustee and Others [(2020) 17 SCC 96]*: The court followed this case to distinguish between religious charities and private charities and to establish that religious charities benefit the public at large.
• M.J. Thulasiraman and Another v. Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Administration and Another [(2019) 8 SCC 689]*: The court followed this case to define the terms ‘endow’ and ‘endowment’ as relating to the act of giving or dedicating something for a religious or charitable purpose.
• Sheodan Singh v. Daryao Kunwar (SMT) [AIR 1966 SC 1332]*: The court followed this case to establish the conditions for res judicata to apply and to conclude that res judicata did not apply in the present case.
• Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal [AIR 1964 SC 1810]*: The court followed this case to establish that for a plea under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the defendant must establish the cause of action of the previous suit and to conclude that Order II Rule 2 did not apply in the present case.
• Virgo Industries (Eng.) Private Limited v. Venturetech Solutions Private Limited [(2013) 1 SCC 625]*: The court followed this case to reiterate that the cause of action in a later suit must be the same as in the first suit for Order 2 Rules 2(2) and (3) CPC to apply and to conclude that Order II Rule 2 did not apply in the present case.
• Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal and Another [(2008) 17 SCC 491]*: The court followed this case to stipulate the limits of a court to grant reliefs beyond the prayer and pleadings of the parties and to clarify the limits of the relief granted in the present case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Historical Usage: The long and uninterrupted use of the jewelry for adorning the deity during the Adipooram festival was a significant factor. The court noted that the jewelry was always used for the deity and never for personal use by the family.
• Temple Records: The temple register (Exhibit A-1), which recorded the jewelry as ‘Adipooram Ambal Thiru Abaranam’, was a crucial piece of evidence. This showed that the jewelry was specifically designated for the deity and not as a personal belonging.
• Testimonies of Witnesses: The testimonies of witnesses, particularly former trustees of the temple, confirmed that the jewelry was donated by the ancestors of Muthuthandapani Chettiar and was exclusively used for the deity.
• Lack of Claim by Muthuthandapani Chettiar: The court noted that Muthuthandapani Chettiar never claimed ownership of the jewelry during his lifetime, further supporting the temple’s claim.
• Nature of the Kudavarai: The Kudavarai was located inside the temple, and the court found it implausible that it was meant to be a personal vault for the family’s jewelry.
• Legal Principles: The court relied on established legal principles regarding religious endowments and the distinction between public and private charities.

[TABLE] of Sentiment Analysis of Reasons:

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Flow:

Implications of the Decision:

• Clarification of Religious Endowments: The judgment clarifies that items donated to a temple for specific religious purposes are considered specific endowments and belong to the temple, regardless of who placed them there.
• Protection of Temple Assets: It strengthens the legal position of temples in protecting their assets and ensures that donations are used for their intended religious purposes.
• Importance of Temple Records: The judgment highlights the importance of maintaining accurate temple records, as they serve as crucial evidence in disputes over ownership of temple assets.
• Rejection of Family Claims: It clarifies that families cannot claim ownership of items that have been donated to a temple for religious purposes, even if they have been involved in the safekeeping of those items.
• Guidance for Future Cases: The judgment provides clear guidelines for resolving similar disputes in the future and reinforces the legal framework surrounding religious endowments.

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals of R.M. Sundaram and upheld the judgment of the High Court, which declared that the jewelry was a specific endowment for the Sri Neelayadhakshi Amman deity. The court held that the jewelry belonged to the temple and not to the family of the appellant.

Key Takeaways:

• Temple’s Right Over Dedicated Jewelry: The Supreme Court affirmed that jewelry dedicated to a deity is a specific endowment and belongs to the temple, not the family that placed it there.
• Importance of Temple Records: The case underscores the importance of maintaining accurate and detailed temple records, which serve as crucial evidence in disputes over ownership of temple assets.
• Legal Clarity on Religious Endowments: The judgment provides legal clarity on the nature of religious endowments and the rights of temples over donated items.
• Protection of Religious Institutions: The decision ensures that religious institutions can protect their assets and use them for their intended religious purposes, as per the wishes of the donors.
• Guidance for Donors: It serves as a guide for donors, emphasizing that donations made for religious purposes are meant to be used for those purposes and not for the personal benefit of the donor or their family.

Impact on Religious Institutions:

• Strengthened Legal Position: Religious institutions have a stronger legal position in protecting their assets and ensuring that donations are used for their intended purposes.
• Reduced Risk of Disputes: The judgment provides clarity that can help reduce future disputes over ownership of temple assets.
• Increased Public Trust: The decision reinforces the public’s trust in the management of religious institutions and ensures that donations are used for their intended purposes.

Impact on Donors:

• Clarity on Donation Intent: Donors are made aware that donations made for religious purposes are meant to be used for those purposes and not for the personal benefit of the donor or their family.
• Increased Confidence in Donations: Donors can have increased confidence that their donations will be used for their intended religious purposes.
• Encouragement for Future Donations: The decision may encourage more people to donate to religious institutions, knowing that their donations will be protected and used for their intended purposes.