Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARAS
S Ayyar, Benson
Krishnayyar
Versus
Soundararaja Ayyangar
Decided On : 15 December, 1897
Trustee - Temple Manager - Suit for Damages
Fact of the Case:
The defendant, a temple manager, was sued for damages due to neglect in discharging duties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit fell under Article 19 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and was not cognizable by a Small Cause Court.
Issues: Cognizability of the suit under the Small Cause Courts Act
Ratio Decidendi: A temple manager, though not possessing hereditary rights and subject to committee superintendence, is considered a trustee. Suits against such persons for damages related to trust fall under Article 19 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.
Final Decision: The suit was held to be not cognizable by a Small Cause Court.
1. A person like the defendant in the present case holding the office of manager of a temple, though he possesses no hereditary right and is subject to the superintendence of a committee appointed under Act XX of 1863, has been held to be a trustee Sethu v. Subramanya I.L.R. 11 Mad. 274 at p. 277. A claim against such a person for damages said to have been caused by his neglect in the discharge of his duties as manager must, therefore, be held to be a suit relating to a trust falling under Article 19 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.
2. The answer to the question submitted is that the suit is not cognizable by a Small Cause Court.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
