Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1971 Supreme(Mad) 94

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. Sadasivam and V. Ramaswami, JJ.
Venkataraman
Versus
L.A. Thangappa
App.Nos. 11 to 13 of 1964.
Decided On : 13 February 1971

Advocates:
N. Ramachandran, N. Sivamani and V. Krishnan, for Appellant.
D. Ramaswami Iyengar, C. Chinnaswami, K. V. Subramaniam and the Additional Government Pleader, for Respondent.

The combination of poojariship and trusteeship in the same individual is not illegal in the case of small temples with meager income, and suits challenging orders of the Commissioner confirming the dismissal of applications for a declaration of hereditary trusteeship are not barred by limitation if filed within ninety days from the date of the Commissioner's orders on appeal.

Headnote:
HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1951 - HEREDITARY TRUSTEESHIP - COMBINATION OF POOJARISHIP AND TRUSTEESHIP - LIMITATION FOR SUITS - SECTION 57(B) - SECTION 62 - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiffs, claiming hereditary trusteeship of three temples, filed suits under Section 57(b) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, challenging the orders of the Commissioner confirming the dismissal of their applications for a declaration of hereditary trusteeship. The defendants, including the Commissioner, contested the plaintiffs' claims, alleging that the plaintiffs were not hereditary trustees, that the trusteeship and poojariship could not be held by the same person, and that the suits were barred by limitation.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the plaintiffs were the hereditary trustees of the respective temples, that the combination of poojariship and trusteeship in the same individual was not illegal in the case of small temples with meager income, and that the suits were not barred by limitation.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs were the hereditary trustees of the respective temples. 2. Whether the combination of poojariship and trusteeship in the same individual was illegal. 3. Whether the suits were barred by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court found that the plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-title had been in possession and enjoyment of the lands attached to the respective temples as de facto trustees for over three generations, and that there was no evidence that the trusteeship was ever enjoyed by anybody else other than the plaintiffs' families. 2. The court held that there was nothing illegal in hereditary trusteeship and poojariship being combined in the same person, especially in the case of small temples where there had been no interference or control by any of the villagers of the place. 3. The court held that the suits were not barred by limitation as the orders of appointment of non-hereditary trustees were not served on the plaintiffs and they were not aware of the same, and that the suits were filed within ninety days from the date of the Commissioner's orders on appeal.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment and decree of the lower court, and decreed the suits with costs.

Ramaswami, J.-These three appeals have been filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S.Nos.55, 56 and 57 of 1961 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge of Erode. O.S.No. 55 of 1971 against which A.S. No. 11 of 1964 has been filed, was a suit to set aside the order of the Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board, Madras, dated 18th March, 1961, confirming the dismissal by the Deputy Commissioner of the plaintiff’s application under section 57 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, for a declaration that the plaintiff was the hereditary trustee of the suit temple. The plaintiff’s case was that the plaintiff’s maternal grandfather one Krishna Iyer and his great grandfather one Narayana Iyer had been the hereditary poojaries and trustees of an ancient temple by name Kaliyughavaradaraja Perumal Temple at Thalayanallur, hamlet of Sivagiri Village, Erode Taluk, Coimbatore District. The lands described in Schedule A to the plaint measuring 39-70 acres belonged to the said temple having been granted to it by the ancient Kings and Palayagars of Madurai. These grants have been recognised and confirmed by the then British Government in 1863 and an inam title deed 151 was also issued for the same. These lands have been in the possession and enjoyment of the said Krishna Iyer and his predecessor-in-title. One Subba Iyer, the only son of Krishna Iyer, executed in favour of the plaintiff a deed of settlement, dated 30th May, 1914, which has been marked as Exhibit A-1 in the suit in and by which he transferred all his rights in and over the temple and the lands belonging to it, and the plaintiff alone has been performing the duties of the trustee and poojari for the last 17 years. While so, at the instigation of the enemies of the plaintiff on the assumption that by reason of the irrigation facilities afforded by the lower Bhavani Project Canal the value of the lands and the income thereon have arisen, the Area Committee initiated proceedings for appointment of non-hereditary trustees and by its resolution dated 24th July, 1959 appointed defendants 1 to 3 as non-hereditary trustees of the temple. The plaintiff filed an application under section 57 (6) of Madras Act of 1951 for a declaration that he was the hereditary trustee of the said temple. This application was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 23rd September, 1940. On appeal by the plaintiff the Commissioner confirmed the order of dismissal of the Deputy Commissioner by the order dated 13th March, 1961. The plaintiff has filed O.S. No. 55 of 1963 to set aside this order of the Commissioner dated 19th March, 1951.

2. Two separate written statements were filed, one by the 1st defendant, and the other by the 4th defendant in the suit, the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments. The 1st defendant contended that the plaintiff’s predecessors-in-title were not the hereditary trustees of the suit temple, that the villagers had control over the management of the suit temple, that the hereditary poojariship and trusteeship could not be held by one and the same person, that in any case the plaintiff was not a heir-at-law of Subba Iyer and that the settlement Exhibit A-l executed by Subba Iyer was not valid in law and did not confer any right on the plaintiff.

3. The 4th defendant, the Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, in his written statement admitted that the plaintiff and his immediate ancestors had been performing pooja in the suit temple but contended that, while officiating as poojaries, they also appeared to have been looking after the secular affairs of the temple generally and doing all the work connected with it, which was normally done by the trustee but stated that it was the practice in the last century for the subordinate officers like archakas,. paricharakas and service holders to function as de facto managers in addition to the performance of their subor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1971 Supreme(Mad) 94

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASR. Sadasivam and V. Ramaswami, JJ.VenkataramanVersusL.A. ThangappaApp.Nos. 11 to 13 of 1964.Decided On : 13 February 1971

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. Sadasivam and V. Ramaswami, JJ.
Venkataraman
Versus
L.A. Thangappa
App.Nos. 11 to 13 of 1964.
Decided On : 13 February 1971