Appointment of a stranger manager for a family endowment is not justified.

M. Madhavan Nair, J.

1. The appellants in these appeals are the 2nd defendant and defendants 4 and 11, in a suit for removal of the 1st defendant, their karnavan, from management of a temple, said to belong to the family as a private endowment, on account of mismanagement and misconduct on his part, and to frame a scheme for its management.

2. By the preliminary judgment of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Quilon, delivered on January 31, 1959 it has been found:

".... the temple site 33.75 cents in plaint item 1 and the temple buildings therein and also items 2 to 5 and 6 to 13 alone belong to the temple as trust properties and that they are treated as such by the members of Ammachi Veedu. ...." (Para 9)

"First defendant admits in para 18 of his written statement that the income from the temple is also being given to the members of the family........... He states an (The surplus amount used to be given as donation to the members of the family every week). Such a distribution of temple funds cannot be characterised as an act of charity in relation to the temple trust as contended on behalf of the 1st defendant. Hence I hold that the income of the temple was being utilised by 1st defendant for purposes not appertaining to the temple trust." (Para. 14).

".... As trustee the temple income could be utilised only for temple purposes. (Para. 15)

"In regard to the management of the temple it is admitted by pw. 1 that 1st defendant is properly conducting the ceremonies and Poojas in the plaint temple and that 1st defendant has effected considerable improvements in the plaint temple. There is also absolutely no evidence to show that 1st defendant is guilty of misappropriation of temple funds for his own purposes or that he is guilty of any misconduct. But the fact remains that he is not keeping any accounts in regard to the income and disbursement of the temple funds. That the prior karnavans were not keeping accounts is no valid defence for the 1st defendant. It is also an admitted fact that he is distributing the surplus income among the members of the family and not for temple purposes......... The distribution of surplus income among the members of the family is certainly detrimental to the interests of the plaint temple." (Para 17)

"Though as stated above Ist defendant is not guilty of any misconduct or dishonest misappropriation of temple funds, it is clear that he has not been diligent in the matter of accounting the temple income. It is therefore necessary for the interests of the plaint trust that certain limitations and restrictions have to be imposed upon the Ist defendant in the matter of the collection of the income of the temple and the disbursement of the same. The evidence of the 1st defendant shows that the other members of the family are causing obstruction in the matter of collecting the temple income. It is therefore justifiable that Ist defendant should be relieved of his duties of collection and expenditure of the temple income. Hence I find that subject to the Ist defendant's absolute rights of management of the temple affairs, in so far as they relate to the conduct of the ceremonies in the temple, a scheme has to be formulated for the proper collection of the income and disbursement of the temple funds. T also find that 1st defendant is not liable to be removed from the management of the temple as 'Kshethra Kariasthan' for the limited extent indicated above and that he has to account for the items as found in Para.18". (Para. 19).

"In the result, a preliminary decree is passed as follows: Subject to the Ist defendant's rights of management as 'Kshethra Kariasthan', to the extent they relate to the performance of religious ceremonies and conduct of the Poojas in the plaint temple as claimed by him in para 22 of his written statement, a scheme will be framed in regard to the collection of the temple income and the disbursement thereof for temple purposes. The scheme will provide (a) For nominating an efficient pe