Formation of scheme ignoring the rights of hereditary trustee.

These writ petitions are filed by one Venkataramani claiming to be the hereditary trustee of three temples, namely, Sri Krishnaswami, Kari Varadarajaswami and Prasanna Venkateswaraswami, situate in the village of West Komaralingam, Udumalpet Taluk, to quash the scheme framed in respect of the management of these temples in O.A. No. 98 of 1955 by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board and to prohibit the Commissioner of the Board from enforcing the said scheme.

Before I dispose of these writ petitions it is necessary for me to State briefly the facts that led to the filing of these writ petitions. The petitioner is the son of one K. S. Ramaswami Ayyangar who claimed to be the hereditary trustee of the abovesaid temples. He alleges that the temple was founded and established by his ancestors 155 years ago. A grant in respect of the temple was made by the Ruler of Mysore and with regard to the Kari Varadarajaswami temple the grant was made by the Palayakars of Madurai. The petitioner’s ancestors have been in possession and enjoyment of the properties attached to the temple. A patta for the properties was issued in the name of his great-grandfather, Narayana Ayyangar, after him to his son and grandson, the grandfather of the petitioner who died in 1951 and thereafter the hereditary trusteeship descended to the petitioner’s father and he continued to be the trustee till he was removed by the Endowments Board for mismanagement of the temples. Owing to the mismanagement of the temples, scheme proceedings were started under section 58 of Madras Act XIX of 1951 in O.A. No. 98 of 1955. and notice was given to the petitioner’s father on 26th March, 1955. He filed his objections on 20th September, 1955 and after an enquiry the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board, Coimbatore, framed a scheme by his order dated 2nd December, 1955. Simultaneously charges were framed against the petitioner’s father under section 45 of the Act and after following the procedure prescribed by the Act the Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 18th. December, 1955 removed him from the office of trustee of the temples.

Then the petitioner’s father started a series of proceedings only with the: intention of preventing the implementation of the scheme framed by the Board and depriving him of the possession of the properties belonging to the temple. He filed O.S. No. 6 of 1956 on the file of the Sub-Court, Coimbatore, for a declaration that the properties of the temple are his absolute properties only burdened with service or in the alternative to declare that he is the hereditary archaka of the temple entitled to the management of the temples and possession of the properties. In that suit one of the important issues framed was “ Whether the plaintiff is a hereditary archaka-trustee of the temple ?” The learned trial Judge gave a finding to the. following effect:

“ Plaintiff’s forefathers and the plaintiff have been the hereditary archaka-trustees of the temple. It was on this ground that the temple was declared as an excepted temple in 1941 .”

Evidently, the reference is to the Board’s order dated 7th November, 1941, wherein it was observed:

“........the petitioner and his ancestors had been managing the temples as trustees and that therefore the temples are excepted temples as defined in Madras Act II of 1927.”

Nevertheless, the suit was dismissed on the ground that the properties really belonged to the temples and therefore the plaintiff cannot claim to be in possession of the same. Against that decree he preferred A.S. No. 240 of 1958. The only question raised before Kailasam, J., was whether the properties in suit belonged to the plaintiff absolutely only burdened with service. The learned Judge negatived this contention and came to the conclusion that the grant was not a personal inam to the plaintiff but that the properties did really belong to the temples. Hence he dismissed the appeal. Thereupon the plaintiff filed L.P.A. No.