Judgement

Law Rep. 76 Ind. App. 67 ( 1948- 1949)

N. S. Venkatagiri Ayyangar v. Hindu Religious 23

Appeal (No. 94 of 1947), by special leave, from a judgment and order of the High Court (November 6, 1944) which revised a judgment and decree of the Court of the District Judge of Ramnad at Madura (August 7, 1943).

The following facts are taken from the judgment of the Judicial Committee. The only matter which arose for determination in this appeal, and on which special leave to appeal was granted, was whether the learned judges of the High Court had any power to interfere in revision with the order of the District Judge.

On July 1, 1907, one Narayana, the grandfather of the appellants, made a will by which he founded a temple and directed his male heirs to act as trustees of the temple. Narayana died in 1910, and in 1915 the family became divided. Thereafter each branch of the family managed the temple for one year in rotation. In 1927, the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926 (Mad. Act II of 1927) (hereinafter, with its amendments, referred to as the “Act") was passed. The Act authorized the creation of a Hindu Religious Endowment Board and empowered it to take over control of temples dedicated to the use of the public. Section 63 of the Act empowered the board to settle a scheme of administration for the endowments connected with a math or temple. Section 84 of the Act was in the following terms

" (1.) If any dispute arises as to whether an institution is a " math or temple as defined in this Act or whether a temple " is an excepted temple, such dispute shall be decided by the " Board.

" (2.) Any person affected by a decision under sub-section (1.) may, within one year, apply to the Court to " modify or set aside such decision ; but, subject to the result " of such application, the order of the Board shall be final.”

The respondent board was duly constituted under the Act, and, in or about the year 1930, demanded a contribution under the Act for the upkeep of the temple constituted by the will of Narayana from N.S. Narayana, another grandson of the testator, though representing a different branch from the appellants. The said N. S. Narayana objected to paying on the ground that the temple was a private one. On January 15, 1931, the respondent, having decided to hold an inquiry under s. 84 of the Act, served a notice on N. S. Narayana informing him that his contention that the temple was a private one would be heard by the board on February 26, 1931, and that he should appear either in person or by counsel. On August 4, 1931, the respondent, having held an inquiry at which N. S. Narayana had been represented, declared the temple to be a public one which was to be classed as an excepted one under the Act. The contention of the appellants was that the said N. S. Narayana was not at the date of those proceedings a trustee of the temple, that the order was never served on the trustees, and that the appellants were not bound thereby. In 1933, the respondent asked Sadagopa, another grandson of the testator, to make a contribution out of the temple funds. Sadagopa objected to the levy on the ground that it was illegal. On September 8, 1933, the respondent ordered the cancellation of the contribution demanded from the temple funds. From 1933 to 1937 the respondent did not appear to have made any further demand for contribution ; but in 1938 the respondent asked for a contribution from the appellants, who refused to pay on the ground that the temple was a private one. In answer to that refusal the respondent, on January 19, 1938, wrote a letter to the appellants in the following terms "Sir,

" Reference—Your letter dated 3.1. 1938, regarding " recovery of contribution, I have to state that your " contention that the temple is Private is untenable as " the temple was already declared by the Board in its order " No. 820, dated 4.8. 1931, to be an Excepted Temple " as defined in the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments " Act, 1926, and a