1973 Supreme(Mad) 458
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.M. Ismail and S. Natarajan, JJ.
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras .....Appellant(s)
Versus
Vaithinatha Gurukkal and .....Respondent(s)
Appeal No. 478 of 1967 and Memorandum of Cross-objections
Decided On : 06 September 1973
Advocates:
The Additional Government Pleader, for Appellants
V. Balasubramanian and J. Jayaraman, for Respondents
Archakas may also be trustees.
Headnote:Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959-Trusteeship-Held, Archakas may also be trustees.
Ismail, J.- The first defendant in O.S. No. 11 of 1966 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Mayuram is the appellant herein. The suit related to a temple known as Sri Panchavatiswaraswami Temple, situate in Ananthandavapuram in Thanjavur district. Exhibit B-I is an extract of the Inam Statement of one Appa Gurukkal dated 16th December, 1861 made before the Inam Commissioner. That statement shows that properties were endowed for Sri Panchavatiswaraswami Temple and that Appa Gurukkal was the person in possession of the properties and Was also the Archaka of the temple. Exhibit A-I is an extract for the Inam Register of Anathandavapuram village. That extract shows, that Appa Gurukkal was the worshipper in possession and the inam itself was confirmed and continued so long as the worship was regularly rendered. Exhibit B-2 is the copy of the inam title deed No. 633 granted to the manager for the time being of the pagoda of Sri Panchavatiswaraswami. Exhibit B-3 dated 18th August, 1884, is a lease chit executed in favour of Appa Gurukkal with reference to the property granted in inam to Sri Panchavatiswaraswami temple. Exhibits A-2 to A-6 are kist receipts for the period 1936 to 1964 for payment of kist for the lands in question by the successors of Appa Gurukkal. At this stage it must be mentioned that Appa Gurukkal himself had no issue and after him one Annu Gurukkal was in charge of the poojas in the temple. Annu Gurukkal is the great grandfather of the two plaintiffs in the suit. After Annu Gurukkal one Swami Gurukkal succeeded him. The father of the plaintiffs was. one Sambasiva Gurukkal who succeeded Swami Gurukkal. Sambasiva GurukkaL had two wives: the first plaintiff is the son through his first wife, while the second plaintiff is the son through his second wife. The first plaintiff herein filed a petition, Exhibit B-16, under section 57 (b) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act XIX of 1951, before the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Thanjavur. That petition was numbered as O.A. No. 128 of 1957. In that petition the first plaintiff prayed for a declaration to the effect that he was holding his office in the temple of Sri Panchavatiswaraswami, Anathandavapuram, Mayuram Taluk, as a hereditary trustee, and he contended that the temple itself was a private temple, that it was constructed by his forefathers and that they were performing poojas in the temple hereditarily as well as managing the lands of an extent of 7 acres 88 cents which were obtained for the benefit of the temple by his forefathers as inam. To that petition no respondents were originally impleaded. The father of the first plaintiff, Sambasiva Gurukkal, as well as the second plaintiff, objected to the declaration prayed for by the first plaintiff, and they filed objection petitions before the Deputy Commissioner. Thereafter they, as well as the legal representatives of another brother of the first plaintiff, were impleaded as respondents to the said petition. They put forward the contention that, so long as Sambasiva Gurukkal was alive, the first plaintiff was not entitled to claim to function as a hereditary trustee of the temple and that consequently the declaration prayed for by the fist plaintiff should not be granted. They affirmed the stand taken by the first plaintiff that the trusteeship to the temple was hereditary, but their case was that, so long as the father was alive, the first plaintiff could not claim to be a trustee. They, however, prayed that, in the event of the first plaintiff being declared as a hereditary trustee, they should also be declared as hereditary trustees along with the first plaintiff. This petition filed by the first plaintiff came to be disposed of by the Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 7th June, 1959, marked as Exhibit A-19 in these proceedings. He posed two questions for consideration: (i) whether the office of trustee of the suit temple is hereditary;
Click Here to Read the rest of this document