The Truth and Lies about Sri Maha Mariamman Temple, Hicom

Malaysia Hindu Sangam Government and International Liasons; The Truth and Lies about Sri Maha Mariamman Temple, Hicom

The Truth and Lies about Sri Maha Mariamman Temple, Hicom

Ranee Narendranath October 15, 2017

Government and International Liasons, Temple

“It is the time that the truth be told about the action by certain parties claiming themselves as champions of the Hindus in this country,” said Datuk Mohan Shan, the President of Malaysia Hindu Sangam (MHS). Perhaps, in the present political scenario where tensions and expectations are high, people are easily duped to believe lies as truth or they are unable to discern truth from falsehood. Such is the newly sensationalized case of Sri Maha Mariamman Temple, Hicom otherwise known as the Seafield Temple.

As a responsible body, MHS shall present to the Hindus in this country the truth which came to the notice of MHS some years ago and exposes the lies now being circulated from certain angles. We urge the Hindus in this country to stand for truth and to stick with Truth. Let us not forget that the basis upon which the Hindu Dharma stands is Truth. Another name for our God is Satyam, Truth. The only way to protect religion is the path of Truth.

MHS would like to bring to the attention of all the Hindus in the country about the following truths about the Seafield Temple. For those who doubt whether these are the truth or otherwise, they may, go to the High Court of Shah Alam and request to see all the court documents filed in the two suits involving the Seafield Temple.

The first suit was filed in 1996 as Civil Suit No.MT1-21-353-1996 between Chellappa a/l K.Kalimuthu (mendakwa sebagai Pegawai Awam Kuil Sri Maha Mariamman, Hicom Shah Alam Selangor sejajar dengan Seksyen 9 @Akta Pertubuhan 1966) and Sime UEP Properties Sdn Bhd, Pengarah Perancang Bandar dan Desa Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, Kerajaan Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, One City Development Sdn Bhd, Merganathan a/l Nallo (Defendants) and Nagaraju a/l Merganathan (Intervener). After a long battle in court, finally, in 2014 all the parties entered into a Consent Judgment.

The second suit was filed in 2001 as Civil Suit No.MT1-22-491-2001 (MT5) between Chellappa a/l K.Kalimuthu (mendakwa sebagai Pegawai Awam Kuil Sri Maha Mariamman, Hicom Shah Alam Selangor sejajar dengan Seksyen 9 @Akta Pertubuhan 1966) (as Plaintiff) and Merganathan a/l Nallo, Nagaraju a/l Merganathan, Sangguletchumi isteri kepada Sanggu, Thanabalan a/l Murugiah, Low Kok Beng, Mohan a/l Muniandy, Subramaniam, Subramaniam a/l Sarangabani, Sarathy a/l Muthan, and Vello s (as Defendants). This suit was heard and an Order was entered on 25 July 2014.

By scrutinizing both the Judgment and the Order, the following facts become clear:

1. Both legal actions were commenced by K.Chellappa as the Public Officer for the temple pursuant to Section 6 of the Societies Act, 1966. If his position or authority to act on behalf of the temple was challenged, then, he would not have gone far to get both the Judgment and Order in his favour!
2. K.Chellappa’s position and role in the temple also became evident as he was the one who took the initial steps to secure the interest of the temple by challenging the developer, landowner, and the Selangor State Government. But for the efforts taken by K.Chellappa, perhaps, the temple would have been long demolished in the1990s itself when development at the site took place!
3. Nagaraju a/l Merganathan who claim himself as the rightful management of the temple was cognizant about the first Suit. Thus, he became an Intervener in the first Suit and later, he became the first Defendant in the second suit. A simple question one needs to ask here is why, if he was dissatisfied with the outcome of the cases, why he did not appeal to the higher courts? He was not unrepresented in both cases. In both cases, he is bound by law to obey the Court Orders.
4. The interesting part of the Consent Judgment dated 11 March 2014 state that Nagaraju a/l Merganathan was allowed to intervene in the first suit solely for the purpose of entering the Consent Judgment and be bound by the terms of the Consent Judgment AND the judgment further state that Chellapan, Nagaraju, the devotees of the Temple and/or any other persons in occupation of the existing Temple site shall have no interest or make any claim whatsoever on the existing Temple site. Was there any objection from Nagaraju to this term?
5. The Consent Judgment further state that Nagaraju and all parties who are in possession or the management of the Temple shall vacate and deliver vacant possession of the existing Temple site within 2 months after the construction of the new temple at the new site. Why did Nagaraju consent to this? Did he at any time object to the relocation of the Temple during the proceedings?
6. The Consent Judgment also mentioned that a sum of RM1.5 million to be deposited by One City Management Sdn Bhd (the Developer) as the Temple Fund” to construct a new temple with water and electricity supply at the new site specified in the Consent Judgment. In addition to a new piece of land with a newly constructed Temple, the Temple Management also shall receive an additional piece of land measuring 1 acre to construct facilities for the devotees including a Multipurpose Cultural Hall which the Temple Management can utilise to generate income for the Temple.

There cannot be any Appeal by any dissatisfied parties as it is a Consent Judgment!

These are clear proof that everyone disputing the ownership or management of the Seafield Temple was fully aware and consented to the relocation of the Temple. Now, after 3 years, why are they singing a different tune and playing the blame game?

Now, what happened to the second suit between Chellappa and Nagaraju & 9 Others?

…. To be continued