Veeraswami, J.- The correctness of the view expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in Manathunainatha Desikar v. Gopala1 as to the applicability of the rule of Tagore case 2is in question in this appeal. There, the learned Judges after examining numerous decisions, concluded:

“It must therefore be taken as settled that the shebaiti office equally with the hereditary office of manager of a South Indian temple is a species of property to which the restrictions enunciated in the Tagore case2 are applicable”.

In view of subsequent decisions, including Shri Govindlalji v. State of Rajasthan3 it will be open to question whether this view is tenable any longer. In Narayanan Nambudripad v. The State of Madras4 the learned Chief Justice and Venkatarama Ayyar, J. considered:

“On the same principle the fact that the trustees have no right to participate in the income from the endowment or its emoluments, is not a ground for holding that it is not property for the purpose of Article 19 (1) (f)”.

But this view seems to run counter to the view of the Supreme Court in Shri Govindlalji v. State of Rajasthan.3 The question whether a mere right to hereditary trusteeship to which no beneficial interest is attached, is property, is of considerable importance on which the decisions prior to Shri Govindlalji v. State of Rajasthan3 are not unanimous. It is, therefore, desirable that the appeal is decided by a Full Bench of three Judges. The papers will be placed before the learned Chief Justice for the purpose.

This appeal coming on for hearing before the above Full Bench in pursuance of the said order of reference, the Court delivered the following Judgment.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by.

Natesan, .J.- This appeal has been placed before the Full Bench as the substantial question that calls for examination is the correctness of the view expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in Munatrunainatha Desikar v. Gopala1 about the applicability of the rule in Juttendramohun Tagore v. Ganendromohun Tagore2 to the office of manager of a South Indian temple under a scheme of succession settled by the founder. The very scheme of succession and right to management of the properties of the temple now in question was the subject-matter of adjudication in Manathunainatha Desikar v.

* 7th July 1966. Gopala1 and this aspect has given rise to a question of res judicata for consideration.

The suit, the decree wherein in favour of the plaintiff has given rise to this appeal by the first defendant, is for a declaration that the first defendant is not entitled to be a joint trustee along with the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3, of the temple to which the suit properties belong. The first defendant’s right to be in possession of the suit properties as joint trustee is questioned and an injunction restraining the first defendant from collecting rents and profits thereof or otherwise interfering with the properties is prayed for. The suit properties nanja punja and jari monai of an extent of 106 acres and 33 1/2 cents situate in the village of Mappalam in Nannilam Taluk, East Tanjore District — admittedly endowed, belong to Sri Viswalinga Vaitheeswaraswami, a deity of the Hindu. Pantheon, whose temple is located at Jaffna, Ceylon. The temple was founded by one Vaithilinga Chettiar, a remote ancestor of the parties, in or about the year 1790, and it owns extensive properties in Jaffna, besides the suit properties. The founder Vaithilinga died in or about 1828. Under his will dated 20th April, 1805, of which Exhibit A-l is registration copy, he prescribed a scheme for the due administration and management of the temple and its properties and the charities he founded. Briefly stated the will prescribes the devolution of the right of management (office of Vicharanai Kartha) after his death, first on his two sons, Gopala Chettiar and Kandappa Chettiar for their lives, and after them upon his male descendants in the male and female lines. The will drafted in old Ta

Click Here to Read the rest of this document