An appointment of a successor to the head of a religious institution is invalid if made mala fide to serve the personal interests of the appointor rather than the bona fide interests of the institution.

Consolidated Appeals from a judgment and decree (December 15, 1918) of the High Court affirming a decree and reversing another decree, both dated March 31, 1913, of the

temporary Subordinate Judge of Ramnad.

The litigation related to the Tiruvannamalai Mutt situate in the district of Madura, and certain dependent devastanams or temples. The present appeal arose out of a suit (No. 1 of 1905) against the present appellant Nataraja and two others claiming a declaration that none of the defendants was a lawful trustee of the mutt or the devastanams, and a second suit (No. 2 of 1905) brought by other plaintiffs against Nataraja and another claiming a declaration that neither appellant was the lawful trustee of the devastanams. The suits were instituted under s. 539 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The District Judge who tried the suits held upon the authorities that the pandara sannidhi as head of the mutt was not a trustee of the mutt properties and that s. 539 did not apply. On this ground, and without recording any evidence, he dismissed both suits ; in suit No. 2 he held that so long as Nataraja was head of the mutt he was by its usage the rightful dharmakarta of the temple.

Upon appeals by the plaintiffs to the High Court, Munro and Abdur Rahim JJ. held that there was no reason why the properties belonging to the devastanams should not be protected if waste or mismanagement, which were alleged, were proved. They accordingly allowed the appeal in original suit No. 2 of 1905 ; they adjourned the appeal in original suit No. 1 of 1905 pending the answer to a reference which they made to the Full Bench, " does the head of a mutt hold the properties constituting its endowment as a life tenant or as a trustee ? " The Full Court held (see Kailasami Pillai v. Nataraja Thambiran (( 1909) I. L. R. 33 M. 265.)) that the head of the mutt was not a trustee save in so far as it was shown that he held particular properties in trust, at the same time they refused to regard him as a life tenant. Upon the case coming again before Munro and Abdur Rahim JJ. they said " The general reply given by the Full Bench is that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the head of a mutt is not a trustee. The appellant contends that he should be allowed to adduce evidence on the point and we think that contention reasonable. We therefore reverse the decree of the District Judge and remand the suit " (i.e., No. 1 of 1905) " for disposal according to law."

The two cases after the remand were transferred to the temporary Subordinate Judge of Ramnad. They were tried by him together with a third suit (No. 19 of 1912) brought by a different plaintiff for a declaration that he had been duly elected head of the mutt by the thambirans or disciples. In that suit the following issue, which was not specifically raised in either of the two suits of 1905, was framed amongst others " Whether the appointment of the defendant to chinna pattam of Tiruvannamalai Adhinam Mutt by the late Thandavarayan Desikar was made mala fide to serve his own purposes and therefore invalid ? " The facts with regard to that issue appear from the judgment of their Lordships.

All three suits were tried together and were dismissed ; with regard to suit No. 19 of 1912 there was no appeal. As regards suit No. 1 of 1905 the Subordinate Judge found that there was no evidence to show that the pandara sannidhi was a trustee of the mutt properties, and he dismissed the suit, holding that it was not maintainable under s. 539 of the Code of Civil Procedure. With regard to suit No. 2 of 1905 he held that it was maintainable under that section as relating only to the devastanam properties. He however found that Nataraja had been appointed chinna pattam, with the right to succeed as pandara sannidhi, as the result of a bona fide compromise of disputes between him and Thandavarayan, and that the appointment was valid.

Appeals in the two suits of 1905 were heard together by the High Court, which