Presumption about poojari being a trustee.

The plaintiff is the appellant. He sued for a declaration that he is the trustee and poojari of six deities mentioned in the plaint and for an injunction to restrain the defendants from obstructing him from enjoying the suit property and from exercising the rights and performing the duties of his office. It may be mentioned at once that though in the plaint six deities are mentioned it has been found that the sixth of them, namely, the deity called Thangammayee Amman, is if one may use that expression, a private deity and outside the scope of this litigation. The defendants pleaded that the plaint deities have no temple, and that there are not even idols for them, although pooja was being performed for them under a tree and that the management of the affairs of the plaint deities has been for a long time in the hands of the second defendant and his ancestors acting “in consultation with the people of Paranam village and according to their advice”.

The learned District Munsif found that the plaintiff was the poojari and trustee and decreed the suit as prayed for with costs. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge found that the plaintiff was only the poojari and that the village community was the trustee and in that view he modified the decision of the learned District Munsif.

On this matter, I am inclined to prefer the conclusion of the learned District Munsif. The immovable properties owned by the temple consist of only the melwaram due from three cawnies of land with an annual yield of Rs.9 and another piece of land purchased in 1918 under Exhibit D-1(a) for a sum of Rs.19. The moveable properties of the deities are however said to be worth Rs.3,000. The principal income of the temple consists of the collections and contributions made by the villagers and worshippers at the time of the annual festival in Masi. P.W.2. deposed that the annual pooja was performed by the villagers, that before the festival the villagers would assemble, collect subscriptions and arrange for the performance of the pooja; and if the villagers do not arrange for it, the poojari could not do it on his own responsibility. To a like effect was the evidence of P.W. 3. This circumstance, the learned Subordinate Judge was inclined to regard, as clearly inconsistent with the claim of the plaintiff that he is the trustee. I find it difficult to agree. Where a deity has no property of its own and the expenses of any celebration have to be met from collections and contributions provided by the villagers, obviously it would be impossible for the poojari or trustee to do anything without their active co-operation and assistance. But this does not mean that the villagers become the trustees. It is more material to consider what amount of control the villagers exercised over the moneys they placed in the hands of the poojaries or trustees. Dealing with this aspect of the matter the learned District Munsif observed:

“... there is no evidence at all to show that they (villagers) have control over the collections at the poojas or have the ordering of the disposal of it. On the other hand, the evidence is that the offerings are handed over to the plaintiff and that too without counting the collections. In my view, the villagers’ activities are more in the nature of rendering assistance for the performance of this big festival than exercising control over it......”

No doubt, an assertion was made that the plaintiff was liable to account to the general body of the villagers. But this is a theoretical liability which attaches to every body who receives moneys collected from or contributed by others. More to the point is the fact, remarked on by the learned District Munsif that there is scarcely any evidence worth the name to show that the plaintiff has ever been called on by the villagers to render accounts. If the villagers were the trustees and the poojari was only their agent, he would normally have been called on to account, in however perfunctory a manner.

It