Release or relinquishment by person in office has no legal consequence.

JUDGMENT :- The plaintiff in O.S. No.13 of 1973 on the file of the subordinate Judge of Coimbatore, originally preferred this appeal. The original appellant died pending the appeal and his legal representative being his son is on record as the appellant. The respondents in the appeal are the defendants in the suit. The suit was laid under S.70 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, XXII of 1959. to set aside the order dated 13-10-1972 of the fourth defendant in A. P. No. 40 of 1971 and to declare that the plaintiff is the hereditary trustee of the Ellai Chandi Vinayakar Temple in Coimbatore. The entire gamut of the facts need not be set out in this judgment for the simple reason, the controversy has boiled down to a particular aspect as to whether hereditary trusteeship, which was admittedly in existence, was lost by relinquishment as reasoned by the fourth defendant in his order and which has found countenance before the Court below. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Court below when it dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

2. The temple is admittedly a public temple, Equally so, it is admitted that the trusteeship of the temple was hereditary. But what has been put against the plaintiff is that from 1902 to 1941, the management of the temple vested with a committee of Abhimanees, pursuant to a deed executed by the father of the plaintiff and hence, the office of hereditary trustee was renounced and relinquished by the father of the plaintiff and so, it was lost to the plaintiff also. However, Mr. T.L. Ram Mohan, learned counsel for the appellant herein, would state that though the father of the plaintiff constituted the committee of Abhimanees, strictly speaking, there was no relinquishment or renunciation of the office of the hereditary trustee by the father of the plaintiff and in spite of the arrangement, the father of the plaintiff was very much in the picture during his lifetime and after him the plaintiff. Learned counsel would contend that neither the father of the plaintiff nor the plaintiff ever stood dissociated from the management of the temple and the committee of Abhimanees got constituted to serve a particular purpose and exigency and in any event, after 1941, the committee of Abhimanees ceased to exist, and from 1947 onwards the plaintiff in his own right as the hereditary trustee is in management of the temple. In any event, learned counsel would further submit that once the office is held to be hereditary, there could not be relinquishment of the said office by the person for the time being in office and by that there could not be deprivation of the rights of the persons who are entitled to succeed to the office.

3. It is true, hereditary trusteeship is not property within Art.19(1)(f) (now deleted) or any other Article of the Constitution. Vide Kakinada Annadana Samajam v. Commr, of H. R. and C. E., (1972) 1 Mad LJ (SC) 5 : (AIR 1971 SC 891). In that case, the Supreme Court distinguished the office of hereditary trustee from that of a shebait of a religious institution, or a Matadhipathi or a Mahant where the ingredients of both office and property, of duties and personal interests are blended together. The Supreme Court countenanced that the position of hereditary trustee is that of a dharmakartha or a mere manager or custodian of a religious institution with an exception, namely, that the hereditary trustee succeeds to the office as of right and in accordance with the rules governing succession (emphasis applied by underlining). Once we countenance that succession as of right is available to the office of the hereditary trustee, it is not possible to permit a person in the office for the time being to barter it away for no value, so as to stultify and cripple the rule of succession. Such bartering away, release or relinquishment by the person for the time being in office in the hereditary trusteeship will be of no legal consequence and the perso