Ramaprasada Rao, J.-This appeal is against the judgment of Sethuraman, J., in application No. 3094 of 1973 in C.S. No. 42 of 1923. Sri Payandi Amman Temple, Nadukuppam, Lloyds Road, Madras is an ancient temple for which a scheme apparently under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure was framed by this Court in C.S. No. 42 of 1923 dated 26th March, 1926. Inter alia the scheme provided that for the management and administration of the temple two trustees were to be in charge thereof. On the happening of a vacancy by the death or resignation or otherwise of one or both the trustees of the temple an application shall be made to the High Court by one or more members of the Pattanavar community residing at Nadukuppam, Triplicane, Madras, for filling up the said vacancy. The methodology by which the selection of the trustee in the vacancy so created is also set out. Consequent upon the creation of a vacancy, the applicant came to Court and sought for an order for appointment of a fresh trustee in the vacancy caused by the retirement of one Balajee. The appellant sought for directions to continue in office as sole trustee till another trustee was appointed by the Court so as to satisfy the terms and conditions under which the scheme was framed. The appellant did not make the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras, who is the statutory officer in overall charge of all temples in the State and who is expected to see to its proper administration in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 hereinafter referred to as the Act, as a party. The Court apparently thought that his presence was necessary before a final order could be made. Notice of this application was given to him. The Commissioner filed a counter-affidavit contending that under the provisions of section 118 of the Act all powers vested in any Court or Judge under any scheme settled by the Court prior to the passing of the Act are to be exercised only by such of the statutory officers expressly nominated under the provisions of the Act. He, therefore, challenged the maintainability of the application in the sense that the Commissioner questioned the jurisdiction of the Court to fill up the vacancy when under the provisions of the Act it has to be done by a specifically nominated statutory authority. This question was taken up as a preliminary issue by Sethuraman, J., who held on an interpretation of section 118 of the Act that the application was not maintainable and directed the appellant to approach the appropriate authority for getting the vacancy filled up. The appeal is against the said order.

2. Various matters touching upon the administration of religious institutions and specific endowments in the State of Tamil Nadu were the subject-matter of various and varied legislation for a considerable length of time. But uniformly in all such pieces of legislation touching up6n the administration of temples and religious institutions or specific endowment or endowments, the Legislature took care to preserve an overall power of supervision, management and administration in the bodies or authorities created by such statutes in preference to the Courts which by necessity were by then exercising such functions under the omnibus provision namely section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which enabled the Court to exercise such jurisdiction and involve themselves in the matters of appointing trustees, settling of schemes etc. One such provision which we find in the Act is section 118. This appears in Chapter XII captioned as “transitional” provision. Section 118 (2) (b) (i) and (ii) are complementary provisions which have made a specific inroad on the powers of civil Courts in the matter of appointment of trustees, supervising religious institutions etc. Whilst section 118 (2) (b) (i) provides that any provision in a scheme settled under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which is re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document