Specification of powers of trustee.

The defendant is the appellant against a reversing Judgment of the learned District Judge of Tiruchirappalli, arising out of a suit brought by the respondent for a permanent injunction restraining the appellant and his men, agents and servants from in any manner interfering with his administration, management and worship during performance of the Sayarakshai and Ardhajamam kattalais by the introduction of tickets for archanas during those periods. The defence to the suit was that the defendant, being a general trustee of the temples themselves, was entitled, in exercise of the powers under section 57 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, to introduce the ticket system for performance of archanas during the periods when the two kattalais are performed in the temple. The trial Judge accepted the defence and dismissed the suit. The lower appellate Court, on the view he took of the statutory provisions, considered that the kattalais being independent institutions, of which the plaintiff was a specific trustee, “the general trustee of the temple had no right under section 57 to pass an order fixing the fee for the performance of any service, ritual or ceremony in the specific endowment”. He, therefore, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. The defendant has, therefore, come up here in second appeal.

It seems to me that the view of the learned District Judge as to the effect of the statutory provisions in respect of the powers of a general trustee of a temple vis-a-vis the powers of the trustee of a specific endowment cannot be accepted. The learned District Judge referred to the definition in the Act of a “temple”, “religious institution” and a “specific endowment” and thought that a specific endowment or a kattalai was an independent institution within a bigger institution, namely, the temple, and to the extent to which the specific trustee functions in performance of a kattalai, to that extent the powers and jurisdiction of the general trustee will stand excluded in respect of the main institution itself. It may be conceded that a specific endowment is certainly a religious institution and in that sense an independent entity. It is also true that a specific endowment as an institution is in a sense one within a bigger institution, namely, a temple. But, from these premises, it does not follow that the specific endowment in any way affects or limits the powers of the general trustee over the temple and the performance of the objects of the specific endowments in the temple. It may be that the general trustee may have no control, in the absence of specific statutory provisions or a decree or scheme, over the actual, administration by the specific kattalaidars of the kattalai properties. But, because the performance of the kattalai is in the temple on particular occasions, does not mean that ipso facto the jurisdiction of the general trustee over the temple on those occassions is excluded. To illustrate, supposing there is a kattalai for performance of a neivedyam on the occasion of a particular nakshatram or star, neivedyam being performed before the deity in the temple. Can it be said that when neivedyam is offered to the deity in the temple the performance is entirely to be controlled by the kattalai trustee, without the general trustee having any right in respect of the temple on the occasion ? I think not. Likewise, supposing the kattalai is for deeparadana on certain occasions in the sanctum sanctorum or inside the temple. On that account, the kattalai trustee cannot assume that, during the time the service is done he has control over the entire temple, and the powers of the general trustee over the temple are confined to the rest of the period. In such cases, the kattalai is but intended for performance of a ceremony or ritual or service in or in connection with temple and does not normally affect or exclude in any way the jurisdiction of the general trustee over the temple, its properties