Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by Sri Siddaraja Manicka Prabhu Temple, upholding the Madras High Court’s decision that the suit property is trust property. The court ruled that the appellant holds the property in trust for Guru Manicka Prabhu Temple and Kamakala Kameshwarar Temple, and not as an absolute owner. The court also rejected the application of res judicata in this case.
Facts of the Case:
The dispute pertains to immovable property adjacent to Kamakala Kameshwarar Temple, which originally belonged to Rai Raja Eswardoss Diawanth Bahadur. After his descendants were declared insolvent, the property was subject to a Compromise Decree dated 26.11.1929, which designated it as trust property. The appellant, Sri Siddaraja Manicka Prabhu Temple, claimed absolute ownership of the property based on subsequent proceedings, but also sought hereditary trusteeship.
Issues:
Whether the suit property was held by the appellant as a trustee or an absolute owner.
Whether the principle of res judicata barred the present proceedings.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The appellant argued that the suit property was not trust property, as it was not explicitly mentioned in the pleadings or in any trust deed modification. The appellant contended that the Compromise Decree did not impose any trustee obligations, and that the responsibility for maintaining the temple did not restrict ownership. They further argued that the principle of res judicata barred the current proceedings, as the nature of the temple was previously decided.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The respondent, Kamakala Kameshwarar Temple, asserted that the suit property was always trust property and that the appellant held it in trust for the maintenance of the temple. They contended that the appellant’s claim of absolute ownership was inconsistent with the Compromise Decree and prior legal proceedings. The respondent also rejected the res judicata argument, stating that the earlier proceedings dealt with different issues.
Analysis of the Law:
The court focused on the interpretation of the Compromise Decree dated 26.11.1929, which explicitly placed the suit property under the management of trustees for the upkeep of the temples. The court noted that the appellant’s claims of absolute ownership were not supported by the terms of the decree, and that the suit property was clearly designated as trust property for religious purposes.
Precedent Analysis:
The court analyzed prior judgments, including the 1990 judgment declaring Kamakala Kameshwarar Temple a public temple, and determined that these proceedings did not impact the status of the suit property. The issue of ownership of the property was distinct from the previous cases regarding the temple’s public or private status.
Court’s Reasoning:
The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court’s finding that the suit property was trust property, based on the provisions of the 1929 Compromise Decree. The court noted that the appellant had acted as a trustee for the property and had forfeited any claim to absolute ownership by failing to use the property for the designated purposes. Additionally, the court rejected the appellant’s claim of res judicata, as the earlier litigation dealt with a different issue.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the suit property is trust property and the appellant holds it solely in the capacity of a trustee for the maintenance of Guru Manicka Prabhu Temple and Kamakala Kameshwarar Temple. There was no order as to costs.
