Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : KRISHNA RAO
Sree Veerabhadraswamivari Temple, Nangagadda, by its trustee - Appellant
Versus
Penumudi Venkateswarlu - Respondent
Decided On : 01-12-65
MADRAS HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1951 - SECTION 57(E), 93 - PROVINCIAL SMALL CAUSE COURTS ACT, 1887 - SECTION 25 - PAITHARAM EXPENSES - WHETHER AN EMOLUMENT - SUIT FOR RECOVERY - WHETHER BARRED - LIMITATION ACT, 1908 - ARTICLE 120 - WHETHER APPLICABLE - DISMISSAL OF AN ARCHAKA - WHETHER AFFECTS RIGHT TO PAITHARAM EXPENSES - RULES UNDER SECTION 100(2) OF THE MADRAS HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1951 - RULES 6 AND 7 - WHETHER APPLICABLE - CONTRIBUTION AND AUDIT FEES - WHETHER ADJUSTABLE OUT OF PAITHARAM EXPENSES - COSTS - WHETHER DEFENDANT LIABLE.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs, three of the four hereditary archakas of Sri Veerabhadraswamivari temple, sued the defendant, the trustee, to recover paditharam expenses incurred by them for the period from fasli 1366 to fasli 1370. The defendant contended that the claim was barred by section 93 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, as it related to a perquisite or emolument falling under section 57(e) of the Act, that the suit was barred by limitation, that one of the archakas was dismissed and the plaintiffs were not entitled to paditharam expenses for the subsequent period, that the plaintiffs did not pay the contribution and audit fees due from them and the amount should be adjusted out of the paditharam expenses, and that the defendant was not liable for costs.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that paditharam is not an emolument of the archakas but the actual expenses incurred by them for performing Nitya Neivedya Deeparadhana, that the suit was not barred by limitation as there was a continuing breach of contract, that the plaintiffs were entitled to the paditharam expenses for the entire suit period as the defendant did not appoint any other archaka to perform the service, that the plaintiffs had paid the arrears of contribution and audit fees and the defendant did not adopt the procedure prescribed by the Code for a counter-claim or set-off, and that the defendant was liable for costs as he did not tender the amount even after the suit was filed.
Issues: 1. Whether the claim for paditharam expenses is barred by section 93 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951? 2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to paditharam expenses for the period during which one of the archakas was dismissed? 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the entire amount claimed by them or whether the amount due from them towards contribution and audit fees should be adjusted? 5. Whether the defendant is liable for costs?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Paditharam is not an emolument of the archakas but the actual expenses incurred by them for performing Nitya Neivedya Deeparadhana. The suit does not raise any dispute as to the disposal of the offerings and therefore no question under section 57 (e) of the Act arises. 2. There was a continuing breach of contract within the meaning of section 23 of the Limitation Act and as the breach had not ceased at the date of the suit, there is no substance in the contention that the claim was barred by limitation. 3. The plaintiffs were entitled to the paditharam expenses for the entire suit period as the defendant did not appoint any other archaka to perform the service. 4. The plaintiffs had paid the arrears of contribution and audit fees and the defendant did not adopt the procedure prescribed by the Code for a counter-claim or set-off. 5. The defendant was liable for costs as he did not tender the amount even after the suit was filed.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed with costs.
( 2 ) THE respondent-plaintiffs are three of the four hereditary archakas and the defendant is the trustee representing the Sri Veerabhadraswamivari temple at nangegadda. Under clause ,7 of an agreement by way of a compromise entered into on 25th July, 1956, between -the archakas and the trustees of the temple the paditharam expenses of the temple were to be borne by the trustee. The said agreement was embodied in Exhibit A-1, the order, dated 29th September, 1956, of the commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, in Miscellaneous application No. 348 of 1956. The plaintiff s case is that, they incurred the paditharam expenses for the period from fasli 1366 to fasli 1370 and brought the suit to recover the same from the defendant. They claimed the expenses at the rate of rs. 40 per month on the foot of Exhibit A-5, an order, dated 15th July, 1959, of the Assistant Commissioner temporarily fixing " paditharam charges " until the " dittam " was approved. The learned trial Judge negatived all the contentions of the defendant and decreed the suit with costs for Rs. 1,840 claimed by the plaintiffs. The defendant seeks to agitate the same contentions again in revision on the ground that the decision of the lower Court is erroneous.
( 3 ) THE first point taken by Sri G. Balaparameswari Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that the claim in the suit is in respect of a perquisite or emolument falling under section 57, clause (e) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitaable endowments Act (XIX of 1951) and that the suit in the civil Court is therefore barred by section 93 of that Act. The learned trial Judge held that paditharam is not an emolument of the archakas but the actual expenses incurred by the archakas for performing Nitya Neivedya Deeparadhana. The defendant adduced absolutely no evidence to show either the nature of the paditharam or that it was essentially a profit or advantage benefiting the archakas. No doubt, paditharam means " an allowance made to a temple " (Wilson s Glossary, 1855, at page 286) or " allowance " sankaranarayana s Telugu-English Dictionary, 1953 at page 668 ). In the present case, Exhibit A-1 refers to " Paditharam expenses " which clearly indicates that it is an allowance for an expenditure incurred. By Exhibit A-5, the paditharam charges are fixed until the dittam is approved and dittam refers to the scale of expenditure in the institution : See section 51 of Act XIX of 1951. The purpose of the expenditure apparently is the performance of the daily rituals of Nitya neivedya Deeparadhana . The allowance is therefore intended to meet the expenses incurred for necessary rituals. It may be that some of the offerings made to the deity during the rituals, such as the cooked food, are ultimately given to the archakas and by the manner of their disposal become perquisites. But this would not be a ground for regarding the ritual itself as being intended for the profit or advantage of the archakas. The suit does not raise any dispute as to the disposal of the offerings and therefore no question under section 57 (e) of the Act arises. The enforcement of the agreement between the parties embodied in Exhibit A-1 is the subject-matter of the suit and therefore the civil Court has clearly jurisdiction to entertain it.
( 4 ) THE next point raised is that, as the suit was instituted on 15th March, 1961 the po rtion of the claim for faslis 1366 and 1367 relating to the period till i5th March, 1958, is barred by limitation. The learned Counsel has not mentioned the Article of the Limitation Act which, according to him, applies. His argument is that the plaintiffs relied on Article 120 of the Limitation Act, that the defendant questio
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
