Framing of scheme under the act.

JUDGMENT.— The appellant herein is the Executive Officer of the Sri Ranganatha-swami Devasthanam, Srirangam who has been appointed as the fit person to manage the suit trust. An extent of 6-65 acres of wet lands in survey No. 229/2 of Thirumanamedu village originally belonged to one Sesha Iyengar. Under Exhibit A-1 dated 22nd July, 1980, Sesha Iyengar and his sons, while dividing all their joint family properties, set apart the said 6-65 acres of land for the purpose of performing the Hamsa Vahana Mandaga-padi to Lord Sri Ranganatha once in three years on Boopathi Tirunal of Sri Ranganatha which falls on the second day of the month of Thai. As per the said partition deed, Sesha Iyengar during his lifetime, and after his death his eldest surviving male descendants had been managing the said property and conducting the Mandagapadi from and out of the income therefrom once in three years. Subsequently disputes arose between the members of Sesha Iyengar’s family. The result was that proceedings were initiated suo motu by the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments under section 64 (1) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for framing of a scheme and for the appointment of a fit person during the pendency of the scheme proceedings. In those proceedings the Executive Officer, Sri Ranganathaswami Devasthanam, Srirangam has been appointed as the fit person under Exhibit B-1 M.P. No. 16 of 1968. Proceedings for framing of a scheme are still pending. Aggrieved against the order appointing the fit person, the respondent herein filed O.S. No. 68 of 1969 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli.

2. His case was that the trust in question is a private trust, that the senior-most male member of the family is entitled to be in possession of the land and perform the Mandagapadi that as such the appointment of a fit person by the Deputy Commissioner is without jurisdiction and that, therefore, he is entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the fit person appointed by the Deputy Commissioner from taking possession of the lands and his performing the Hamsa Vahana Mandagapadi from the income therefrom.

3. The appellant resisted the suit contending that the trust in question is a public trust, that for the last two decades there has been submission to the jurisdiction of the endowments department by the persons in management of the said public trust, that in any event the suit is barred by the provisions of the Act and that, therefore, the appointment: of a fit person had been validly made and there is no question of issuing an injunction against the fit person.

4. The trial Court, on a consideration of the evidence adduced in the cane found that though the trust in question is a private one, the suit cannot be maintained as there has been submission to the jurisdiction of the Endowments Department by persons in management of the trust and therefore the plaintiff-respondent has to resort to the remedies provided under the Act. On appeal by the plaintiff, the lower appellate Court held that as the trust in question is a private one, the provisions of the said Act are not applicable to it and that the mere fact that some of the descendants of the original founder Sesha Iyengar submitted to the jurisdiction of the Endowments Department will not constitute a bar for the present suit. In this view, the lower appellate Court decreed the suit.

5. In this second appeal, Mr. Gopalaswami Iyengar, learned counsel for the appellant questions the findings of both the Courts below that it is a private trust. He also questions the view of the lower appellate Court that the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act XXII of 1959, will not bar the suit. According to the learned counsel, the trust in question comes under the definition of “specific endowment” as defined in section 6 (19) of the Act, that, therefore the said trust has to be governed by the provisions of the said Act, and t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document