Singular if includes plural.

Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.-

This appeal is against the judgment of Srinivasan, J., and it involves the construction of section 101 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. For the Sri Mariamman and Sri Angalamman temples at Andipatti village, Salem Taluk, the Area Committee appointed the second respondent to this appeal and four others as non-hereditary trustees. The five trustees appear to have met on 17th January, 1961, and elected the second respondent as the Chairman of the Board of Trustees. The second respondent applied then before the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, for a certificate under section 101 of the Act to enable him to take possession of the properties from the appellants who claim to be the hereditary trustees of the institution.

We are not here concerned with the question whether they are the hereditary trustees or not. The only point taken in this appeal is whether it would be competent for the second respondent alone to apply to the Deputy Commissioner under section 101 of the Act for a certificate, or whether it would be necessary that the entire body of trustees should so apply. Srinivasan, J., has held that the second respondent could sustain the application by himself. The same view appears to have been taken by Jagadisan, J., in Writ Petition No. 272 of 1959. In a later case, however, Srinivasan, J., after discussing the matter more fully, came to the conclusion that an application for the issue of a certificate by one only of the trustees where there are more than one, even if he happens to be the Managing Trustee, would be incompetent. This view, in our opinion, accords with the provisions of the section itself. Section 101 provides that where a person has been appointed as a trustee and he is resisted in obtaining possession of the religious institution or its properties or its records by any one of the persons referred to in that section, he would be entitled to obtain an order from a Magistrate having jurisdiction over the area for being put in possession of the properties. To entitle him to do so he will have to produce a certificate by the Commissioner in a prescribed form setting forth that the properties in question belong to the religious institution. The proviso to that section says that before issuing any such certificate, the Commissioner shall give notice to the person complained against of his intention to issue the certificate. The application for certificate is, therefore, itself a statutory proceeding. A careful reading of the section shows that the only person entitled to obtain the certificate would be the person who has been appointed as a trustee or Executive Officer as the case may be. It is a well-known rule of interpretation that where a statute employs a singular, it will include the plural unless it is otherwise indicated. When, therefore a single trustee is appointed, he would undoubtedly have the right to apply for the certificate and then armed with the certificate apply again to the appropriate Magistrate for being put in possession of the property. But, where as in the present case, more than one trustee has been appointed, all of them should apply together. This is the plain reading of the statute. This view is in accord with principle as well.

It is well settled that in the case of co-trustees, the office is a joint one, all of them forming, as it were one collective body. They should therefore execute the duties of their office in their joint capacity. It will undoubtedly be open to them in matters of a routine nature to divide their duties. But, so far as their applications to Courts and to public authorities for enforcement of statutory rights or privileges are concerned, they should all figure as a party or apply for the same. This principle has been recognised by this Court in Ramalingam v. Peria Kali Goundan1. In that case a scheme provided that the Managing Trustee could represent the Devasthanam in all suits and pro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document