Back
1933 Supreme(Mad) 218
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Ramesam, J.
Trikaderi Manakal Vasudevan Adiserpad and Ors.
Versus
Thekkamparambhath Manakal Bhawadasan Nambudiri and Ors.
Decided On : 11.05.1933
The court ruled that it is not competent to the Court in a suit instituted under Section 73(1) to decree an account and inquiry. The court also held that the Act makes specific provisions for the institution of suits in respect of the administration or management of religious endowments, and a suit to recover a debt ascertained and reported by the official auditors to be due by a trustee to the temple would not be barred by Section 73(2). The court emphasized the need to formulate a scheme to prevent mismanagement of the endowment properties in the future.
Headnote:
Hindu Religious Endowments - Mismanagement - Section 73, Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act 2 of 1927 - [Section 73] - The court allowed the appeal in respect of the decree for an account, ruling that it is not competent to the Court in a suit instituted under Section 73(1) to decree an account and inquiry. The court also held that the Act makes specific provisions for the institution of suits in respect of the administration or management of religious endowments, and a suit to recover a debt ascertained and reported by the official auditors to be due by a trustee to the temple would not be barred by Section 73(2). The court emphasized the need to formulate a scheme to prevent mismanagement of the endowment properties in the future.
Fact of the Case:
The suit was filed under Section 73, Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act 2 of 1927, seeking various reliefs including removing trustees, framing a scheme of management, directing defendants to render an account of their management, and paying damages for loss caused to the temple by their fraud and mismanagement. The District Judge gave a decree directing that account should be taken of various items and that the defendants should pay to the Board of Religious Endowments such sum as may be found due on the taking of accounts and granting some other reliefs.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the appeal in respect of the decree for an account, ruling that it is not competent to the Court in a suit instituted under Section 73(1) to decree an account and inquiry. The court also held that the Act makes specific provisions for the institution of suits in respect of the administration or management of religious endowments, and a suit to recover a debt ascertained and reported by the official auditors to be due by a trustee to the temple would not be barred by Section 73(2). The court emphasized the need to formulate a scheme to prevent mismanagement of the endowment properties in the future.
Issues: The main issue was whether the suit filed under Section 73(1) of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act 2 of 1927, seeking various reliefs including removing trustees, framing a scheme of management, directing defendants to render an account of their management, and paying damages for loss caused to the temple by their fraud and mismanagement, was maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that it is not competent to the Court in a suit instituted under Section 73(1) to decree an account and inquiry. The court also held that the Act makes specific provisions for the institution of suits in respect of the administration or management of religious endowments, and a suit to recover a debt ascertained and reported by the official auditors to be due by a trustee to the temple would not be barred by Section 73(2). The court emphasized the need to formulate a scheme to prevent mismanagement of the endowment properties in the future.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal in respect of the decree for an account, ruling that it is not competent to the Court in a suit instituted under Section 73(1) to decree an account and inquiry. The court also held that the Act makes specific provisions for the institution of suits in respect of the administration or management of religious endowments, and a suit to recover a debt ascertained and reported by the official auditors to be due by a trustee to the temple would not be barred by Section 73(2). The court emphasized the need to formulate a scheme to prevent mismanagement of the endowment properties in the future.
Ramesam, J.
1. This is an appeal against the decree of the District Judge of South Malabar in O.S. No. 3 of 1929. The suit was filed under Section 73, Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act 2 of 1927, In the plaint the following reliefs were prayed for: (a) removing such of the defendants from their places as trustees of Tirumullapalli temple as the1 Court finds to be guilty of fraud or gross mismanagement ; (b) framing a scheme of management for the Tirumulapalli temple in Karalamanna Amsam, Wallu-vanad taluk, in consultation with the Board of Religious Endowments; (c) directing defendants 1 to 5 and 11 and 12 to render an account of their management after producing all account books and documents and other temple property in their possession or power and pay such sums as are found due; (d) directing defendants 1 to 5 and 11 and 12 to surrender all temple articles, jewels, documents, keys, etc., in their possession or power; (e) directing defendants 1 to 5 and 11 and 12 to pay damages for all loss caused to the temple by their fraud and mismanagement; and (f) granting plaintiffs costs and such further relief as the nature of the case may require. The District Judge has given a decree directing that account should be taken of various items and that the defendants should pay to the Board of Religious Endowments such sum as may be found due on the taking of accounts and granting some other reliefs. Defendants 1, 3, 4 and 5 have Jiled this appeal. Defendant 4 afterwards died and his legal representative has been made a respondent.
2. Before considering the merits of this appeal it is first necessary to state the history of the institution up to the filing of the suit. The temple with which we are concerned is a Saivite temple in the village of Tirumullapalli, Karlamanna Amsam, Walluvanad Taluk of South Malabar District. It is a very ancient institution managed by ten hereditary trustees. These trustees are the Karnavans of ten Nambudiri illoms. These ten hereditary trustees are now defendants 1 to 10 in this suit. Up to the year 1915 the practice was for the karnavans to jointly appoint a karia-stan and get all the business managed through him. In that year one Kunju Nedungadi was appointed as kariastan. Originally no security was taken from him. In October 1927 a resolution was passed by the uralers that security should be demanded from Nedungadi. Consequent on this resolution Nedungadi resigned his appointment by the letter Ex. 7 dated 6th November 1927. He followed his resignation by a criminal complaint before the Sub-Magistrate of Ottapalam (Ex. 21, dated 8th November 1927). Afterwards one Chandu Nair, who had previously been in charge of a portion of the properties belonging to the temple called the Kuruva estate and who was also the accountant was appointed kariastan. On 31st March 1928 Nedungadi filed a petition (Ex. 23) before the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Malappuram complaining of forcible opening of the rooms in the Pathaya-pura belonging to the temple. This was followed up by a petition by some uralers to the Collector of Malabar (Ex. J, dated 17th April 1928). The Collector apparently referred the matter to the Religious Endowments Board. The Endowments Board then entered upon an inquiry. The Commissioner examined Chandu Nair on 23rd August 1928 (Exhibit B-1).
3. On 17th October 1928 petitions were filed by four uralers (defendants 1 to 4) against six persons who are members of the families of uralers (defendants 6, 7, 8 and 10) complaining that two or three of the uralers took the side of the dismissed Nedungadi and were throwing various obstacles in the way of the peaceful management of the temple, that the accused have obstructed the management by Chandu Nair and the regular performance of the pujas of the temple, that they tried to create trouble on the occasion of a festival, that the petitioners had to seek the help of the police, that they drove away the poojari with the help of a gang of rowdies and th
