Chandra Reddy, C.J.-

This appeal is filed against the judgment of our learned brother Ramakrishnan, J., in Appeal No. 27 of 1959. The dispute relates to the Ellaichandu Chettimai Vinayakar Koil in Coimbatore. A petition was filed under section 84 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act for declaring it to be a private temple. This petition was dismissed by the Board on the ground that it was a temple within the purview of section 9(12) of the Act. The aggrieved party presented a petition under section 84(2) and (3) of the Act (II of 1927) as amended by Act X of 1946 to set aside that order. Being of the opinion that the institution in question was a temple within the definition of section 9(12) of Act, the District Judge, Coimbatore, dismissed that petition. It is this judgment that was challenged in Appeal No. 27 of 1959. Concurring in the conclusion of the trial Court as to the character of the temple, Ramakrishnan, J., dismissed the appeal.It is this view of the learned Judge that is under challenge in this Letters Patent Appeal.

The contention raised by learned Counsel for the appellant is that there are no features in this case which would justify the conclusion of the Courts below that the temple in question is governed by section 9(12) of the Act. Before we deal with the soundness of this contention it is convenient to state briefly the facts which led to this appeal.

The temple in question was founded by Nanjappa Chetty and Pillaru Chetty, the ancestors of the appellant, some time prior to 1886. In the year 1886 there was a partition in that family at which the management of this temple and its properties were entrusted to one of the members of that family, Peria Nanjappa Chetty. He was required to perform the kattalais as usual. Some time later, under the terms of the dharmasasanam deed dated 17th April, 1902, a registration copy of which is marked as Exhibit A-4 the management of the temple was committed to eleven persons who were said to be interested in the institution. These persons were to administer the affairs of the institution and its properties subject to the supervision of the concerned Chettimai and his lineal descendants. It appears from that document that the properties, the income from which was being utilised for the expenses of the temple, constituted the endowments of the institution. Nothing was heard of this institution till we come to 1949 when O.A. No. 22 of 1949, giving rise to this Letters Patent Appeal was presented before the Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras, for the relief mentioned above.

The contention that the institution is not a temple within the ambit of section 9(12) of the Act is once again sought to be sustained herein. The argument presented by Sri Venkatarama Ayyar, learned Counsel for the appellant, is that as the temple was founded for the benefit of sixty families attached to the religious headship of the appellant Chettimai the temple should be excluded from the purview of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act. As supporting this proposition reliance is placed on a passage in Lewin on Trusts occurring at page 15:

"Another division of trusts is into public and private. By public must be understood such as are constituted for the benefit either of the public at large or of some considerable portion of it answering a particular description. To this class belong all trusts for charitable purposes, and indeed public trusts and charitable trusts may be considered in general as synonymous expressions. In private trusts the beneficial interest is vested absolutely in one or more individual who are, or within a certain time may be, definitely ascertained and to whom, therefore, collectively, unless under some legal disability, it is, or within the allowed limit will be competent to control, modify or determine the trust.

On the basis of this passage it is urged by Sri Venkatarama Ayyar that the subject-matter of mis enquiry should be treated as a private one fo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document