Most often in Tamil movies, Madurai is depicted as a city of violence –
one would find people roaming freely with ‘aruvals’ tucked on the back of the
shirt !! - the beautiful and religious land of Madurai
was originally a forest known as Kadambavanam. King Kulasekara Pandya cleared the forest and
built a temple around the Lingam. On the
day the city was to be named, Lord Shiva is said to have appeared and drops of
nectar from his hair fell on the town. So, the place was named Madurai –
mathuram meaning “sweetness” in Tamil. Madurai has a rich historical background
in the sense that Lord Shiva himself performed sixty-four wonders called
“Thiruvilaiyadals”.
It has a rich history – as early as the 3rd century BC, Megasthanes
visited Madurai. Later many people from Rome and Greece visited Madurai and
established trade with the Pandya kings. Madurai flourished till 10th century
AD when it was captured by Cholas the arch rivals of the Pandyas. The Cholas
ruled Madurai from 920 AD till the beginning of the 13th century. In 1223 AD
Pandyas regained their kingdom and once again become prosperous. In 1323, the
Pandya kingdom including Madurai became a province of the Delhi empire, under
the Tughlaks. There were battles and
plunderings by marauding Islamic invaders.
The 1371, the Vijayanagar dynasty of Hampi captured Madurai and Madurai
became part of the Vijayanagar empire. After the death of Krishna Deva Raya
(King of Vijayanagar empire) in 1530 AD, the Nayaks became independent and
ruled the territories under their control. Among Nayaks, Thirumalai Nayakkar (1623-1659) was very popular. The Raja Gopuram
of the Meenakshi Amman Temple, The Pudu Mandapam and The Thirumalai Nayakar’s
Palace are living monuments to his artistic fervor.
For us Madurai is famous for Sri Meenakshiamman temple, Sri Koodal
Azhagar temple and many other temples.
There are political interference everywhere and temples are not properly
managed by HR&CE – while crores fo revenue go to the Govt, nothing much
occurs for the temple. In recent times,
a message has been circulating of a Mutt property that housed our Acarya
Nampillai sannathi, having been taken over by a politician and used as a
lodge. An individual reportedly Sri
Appathurai Iyengar at 83 years of age fought this case for long with no support
and eventually has succeeded in gaining possession of the property that had
been trespassed and under occupation.
Mere words would never suffice to appreciate the efforts of people like
him in upholding our Sampradhayam.
ஸ்ரீவைணவ
திவ்யதேசங்களில் மதுரை கூடலழகர் பெருமாள் கோவில்
சிறப்பான ஒன்று. முற்கால பாண்டியர்கள் குல
பரம்பரையாக வழிபட்டும் திருப்பணிகள் செய்தும் வந்த தொன்மையை கொண்டது. பெரியாழ்வாரால்
'ஸ்ரீமந்நாரணனின் பரத்துவம்' - திருமால் ஒருவரே
பரம்பொருள் என நிர்ணயம் செய்த தலமாகவும், திருப்பல்லாண்டு விளைந்த திருத்தலமாகவும்
விளங்குகிறது. 108 திவ்ய தேசங்களில் கூடல்
அழகர் கோவிலிலும், திருக்கோஷ்டி யூரிலும் அஷ்டாங்க
விமானத்தில் எம்பெருமான்கள் காட்சி தருகின்றனர்.
இந்த விமானம் 125 அடி உயரம் கொண்டதாகும். இதில் உள்ள கலசம் 10 அடி உயரமுடையது. 8 பகுதிகளாக உயர்ந்து நிற்கும் இந்த விமானம்
"ஓம் நமோ நாராயணாய" என்ற எட்டெழுத்து
மந்திரத்தின் வடிவமாகும்.
நிற்க
! ~ WA மற்றும் முகநூலில் பரவலாய் பலர் போஸ்ட்
செய்யும் ஒரு முக்கிய நிகழ்வு.
மதுரை
மாநகரத்திலே அருள்மிகு ஸ்ரீ கூடலழகர் திருக்கோவில் அமைந்துள்ள தெருவின் அருகே வானமாமலை மடத்திற்கு
சொந்தமான நம்பிள்ளை சந்நிதி ஒன்று இருந்துவந்தது. சுமார் 50 வருடங்களுக்கு முன் திராவிட கட்சி பிரமுகர் ஒருவரால் ஆக்ரமிக்கபட்டு, கோபுர மாடங்கள்
இடிக்கபட்டு லாட்ஜ் ஒன்று கட்டப்பட்டது. இதை
மீட்பதற்கு திரு அப்பாதுரை அய்யங்கார் என்ற
ஸ்ரீ வைஷ்ணவர் ( கூடலழகர் கோவில் அத்யாபகர் சுவாமி ) நீதிமன்றத்தில் வழக்கு தொடர்ந்து
சட்ட ரீதியாக தனி ஒரு மனிதனாக 30 வருடங்களாக
போராடி நீதி மன்ற தீர்ப்பை வெற்றிகரமாக பெற்றுள்ளார்.
அதன்படி, சமீபத்தில்
நீதிமன்ற அதிகாரிகள் ஆக்கிரமிப்புகாரர்களை அகற்றிவிட்டு இந்த கோயில் நிலத்தின்
தன் வசத்தில் வைத்துக்கொள்ளும் அதிகாரத்தை (possession) பூட்டு சாவியோடு திரு அப்பாத்துரை அய்யங்காரிடம்
கொடுத்தனர். தனது 83 வது வயதிலும் அயராமல்
பாடுபட்டு தன பொருள் நேரம், உழைப்பு எல்லாவற்ரையம் செலவழித்து, தடங்கல்களையும் அச்சுறுத்தல்களையும் பொருட்படுத்தாமல் நீதிமன்றம் சென்று கோயிலை மீட்ட அந்த மஹானை நாம்
வணங்குகிறோம்.
அவரை ஸ்ரீ மதுரவல்லி தாயாரும் ஸ்ரீ கூடல் அழகரும் பரிபூர்ணமாய் கடாஷித்து இன்னும் பல கைங்கர்யங்களை
பெற்று கொள்ளவேணுமாய் ப்ராத்திப்போமாக. சுமார் 30 வருடங்களாக திருவாரதனமின்றி இருந்த
நம் ஆச்சார்யரான நம்பிள்ளை விக்ரகமும் அவரது திருவாரதன பெருமாளும் இங்கே காணலாம். இனி ஸம்ரோஷணம்/ நித்ய திருவாரதனம் செவ்வனே நடைபெற
கூடல்மாநகர் எம்பெருமானை பிரார்த்திப்போம்.
In searching for this
judgement stumbled upon another -Civil
Appeal No 9492 of 2019 filed by the the Idol of Sri Renganathaswamy,
represented by its Executive Officer Vs. P K Thoppulan Chettiar, Ramanuja
Koodam Anandhana Trust. Here are some
excerpts of the case.
This appeal arises from a
judgment dated 1 December 2016 of a Single Judge of the Madurai Bench of High
Court of Judicature at Madras. The High Court dismissed the appellant‘s second
appeal and upheld the judgment of 2005 of the Principal District Judge, Tiruchirapalli
and the decree dated 10 November 2004 of the Second Additional Subordinate
Judge, Tiruchirapalli, permitting the
first respondent to sell a portion of the suit property to the fourth
respondent.
The first respondent is a
trust represented by its Managing Trustee. The second and third respondents are
members of the first respondent. The suit property was originally purchased on
2 June 1887 by Thoppulan Chettiar. On a portion of the property, he constructed
a ‘Stone Mandapam‘ for the deity of Sri Renganathaswamy. During the Hindu
festival months, the deity of Sri Renganathaswamy would come here and provide
His divine blessings. In addition, Thoppulan Chettiar also conducted other
charitable activities at the suit property for the benefit of the devotees,
namely supplying drinking water and millet porridge for three days during the
Gajendra Moksham and Eighteen Padi festivals from the ―Mahimai fund (God‘s account), which was established from
his granary business. After fourteen continuous years of carrying on these
charitable activities, on 8 July 1901, Thoppulan Chettiar executed a Deed of
Settlement, prohibiting the future sale or mortgage of the suit property and
directing his descendants to continue carrying out these charitable activities
upon his death from the income of their business‘.
By a lease deed in 1978, the suit property was leased out to Sri
Renga Fibre for twenty years. Sri Renga Fibre further sub-let the suit property
to various third parties. A portion of the suit property admeasuring 2,500
square feet was encroached upon by third parties and the first respondent had
filed a suit for eviction of the
encroachers before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Trichy. Owing to the
difficulties in maintaining the suit property and preventing encroachment, the
managing trustees of the first respondent decided to sell the suit property
(20,865 square feet) to the fourth respondent, leaving aside 4,135 square feet,
where the ‗Stone Mandapam‘ was situated. The object of the sale was to use the
interest generated from the sale consideration for carrying out the object of
the charity. By an agreement of 2001,
the first respondent sought to sell land admeasuring 20,865 square feet (out of
property admeasuring 25,000 square feet) to the fourth respondent. The present
dispute concerns the proposed sale of the 20,865 square feet. The 1st Respondent instituted a
suit in Trichy seeking permission for sale of suit property. The proposed sale
was resisted by the EO of the temple of Sri Renganathaswami contending that the trust had no right to alienate the
property and that Thoppulan Chettiar had dedicated the entire property to the
idol for the performance of charitable activities.
In 2004, Second Additional
Subordinate Judge decreed the first respondent‘s suit and held that the Act of
1959 was not applicable to the first respondent trust as it was a private trust
and not a public trust. The trial judge relied upon the fact that the register
of properties owned by the appellant made no mention of the suit property and
held that the Deed of Settlement did not vest the suit property in the
appellant. Accordingly, it was held that Section 34 of the Act of 1959 had no
applicability and the proposed sale could be sanctioned only by a civil court.
In appeal, the Principal Dist Judge, Tiruchirapalli upheld the judgment of the
trial court. In 2006, High Court dismissed the second appeal,
holding that the Deed of Settlement did not create any charge or encumbrance in
favour of the appellant.
Mr Mohan Parasaran,
learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant assailed the
judgment of the High Court on various grounds stating the deed of settlement of
Thoppulan chettiar had purchased the property for performance of charitable
work, a religious charitable endowment had been
created and attached with the festivals of the appellant temple and therefore,
dedication of the property for creation of an endowment of a religious
character stood established. That the charity was to be performed from the income
derived from the suit property. If the income was found to be higher, the
excess income was to be kept as reserve family fund; the trustees were
prohibited from selling or mortgaging the suit property specifically dedicated
for the purpose of the charity.
Opposing these
submissions, Mr V Giri, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents submitted that the provisos of the Act of 1959 are not applicable to the
first respondent and the deed of Settlement does not create any specific endowment
in favour of the appellant deity. The performance of the public charity is not
directed to be performed in the temple and the charity is to be performed only
at the suit property. The management and
administration of the first respondent trust is only dealt with by the lineal
descendants of the founder of the trust. The HR & CE Department never
appointed any trustees and no member of the public participated in the
management of the first respondent trust.
The assistant
superintendent of the temple, who appeared as witness, admitted during cross-examination that the temple never
exercised any control over the respondent trust and there is no dedication of
the suit property in favour of the temple. If the dedication of the property is complete, a trust in favour of public
religious charity is created. If the dedication is partial, a trust in favour
of the charity is not created but a charge in favour of the charity is attached
to, and follows, the property which retains its original private and secular
character.
The term ―religious
charity has been defined in Section 6(16) as follows: it means a public charity
associated with a Hindu festival or observance of a religious character,
whether it be connected with a math or temple or not; The definition also
clarifies that a ―religious
charity may be distinct from a charity associated with a particular temple, and
for a charity to constitute a ―religious charity, there is no requirement for
the public charity to be connected with a particular temple or a math. The
Court held that in the present case, the
Deed of Settlement states that the charity is to be carried on for the benefit
of the ―devotees of Sri Renganathaswamy who visit during the Chithirai Gajendra
Moksham and Padi Eighteen festivals. The devotees as the ultimate beneficiaries
of the charity are not an identifiable group of individuals, but constitute an
uncertain and fluctuating body of persons. The devotees as a class of
beneficiaries are not definitive. The appellant in the present case has
asserted that there existed a specific endowment in its favour. The Court
observed that the Deed of Settlement
does create a ―specific endowment‖
as regulated by the Act of 1959. In view of Section 108, no suit or legal
proceedings in respect of the administration or management of a religious
institution or any other matter for determining or deciding which provision is
made in the Act shall be instituted in a civil court. Any dispute with respect
of administration or management of religious institutions is governed in
accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1959.
The Apex Court allowed the
appeal and set aside the order of the Single Judge of the Madurai Bench of the
High Court of Judicature at Madras. In consequence, the suit filed by the first
respondent shall stand dismissed. However, the first respondent is at liberty
to adopt the prescribed procedure under the Act of 1959.
There shall be no order as to costs.
There shall be no order as to costs.
With regards –
S.Sampathkumar
23.2.2020.
No comments:
Post a Comment