Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARAS
K.A. Veeraraghava Thatha Chariar
Versus
T. Srinivasa Thatha Chariar
Decided On : 26 April, 1912
SCHEME FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF THE TEMPLE OF SRI DEVARAJASWAMI AT CONJEEVARAM AND THE SHRINES ATTACHED TO IT - [THATACHAR FAMILY] - [ACT 5 OF 1884, SECTION 539] - [ACT 5 OF 1908, SECTION 92] - [CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE] - [RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS ACT] - [RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS] - [TEMPLE MANAGEMENT] - [TRUSTEES] - [WORSHIPPERS] - [WRIT PETITION] - [WRIT OF MANDAMUS] - [WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO] - [WRIT OF CERTIORARI] - [WRIT OF PROHIBITION].
Fact of the Case:
The suit was instituted by certain members of a group of families known as the Thathachars who are all said to be the descendants of one Koti Kanyakadanam Thatha Desikar, a famous scholar who is reputed to have been the. priest of Sri Krishna Devaraya, the Rajah of the Carnatic. The original defendants were also members of the same family. Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 are admittedly trustees of the temple and the 19th defendant also claims to have been validly appointed as trustee by a mediator who is alleged to have possessed the power to appoint him. According to the rules of the institution prevailing at the time of the suit, the temple was to be administered by five trustees. These trustees admittedly were to be ordinarily elected by members of the families of the Thathachars, the mediator, it is stated, having the right to fill up the vacancy if the Thathachars fail to exercise their right of election. Defendants Nos. 5 to 8 are the sons of the 1st defendant. Defendants Nos. 10 to 15 are other Thathachars who were subsequently added as parties. According to the plaint, the Dharmakartha Mirasi right i.e. the hereditary right of Dharmakartcaship, belonged to the family descended from Kotikanyakadanam Thatha Desikar (whom we shall hereafter refer to as Thatha Desikar.) But this contention was given up before us at the hearing of the appeal and nothing more was claimed for the members of the Thathachar families generally than the right to elect trustees and certain rights of interference beyond what ordinary worshippers possessed. The 1st defendant and his sons and certain other families of Thathachars claimed the exclusive right of trusteeship. The plaint after referring to the history of the management of the temple, referred to the present condition of affairs which was stated to be extremely unsatisfactory and set out various acts of non-feasance, misfeasance and malfeasance on the part of the trustees and stated that a scheme has been framed by Sir V.C. Desika Chariar, then a leading Vakil in Madras (now one of the Judges of the Presidency Small Cause Court) and assented to by about 100 members of the family. But defendants Nos. 1 and 4 to 8 and 9th defendant expressed their dissent while 18 others expressed neither their assent nor their dissent. The plaint then refers to the absolute necessity for a scheme and prays for the settlement of a scheme either by adopting the scheme settled by Sir V.C. Desika Chariar or by framing a new one and for certain other incidental reliefs.
Finding of the Court:
1. The alleged exclusive right of the family of defendants Nos. 1 to 5 is extinguished by the statute of limitation. 2. We have the power, if we considered it desirable, to appoint additional trustees, but in the circumstances of the case we considered it both unecessary and undesirable to appoint any additional trustees, either from amongst the Thengalais or from amongst the Sthalathars. 3. It is necessary to control the management of the affairs of the temple by the trustees and that we would be prepared to consider any measure that might be proposed for the purpose.
Issues: 1. Whether the family of defendants Nos. 1 to 5 is entitled to the exclusive right to trusteeship in the temple? 2. Whether additional trustees should be appointed to put an end to the constant and recurring quarrels and litigation connected with the temple and to put the administration of its affairs on a satisfactory-footing?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The alleged exclusive right of the family of defendants Nos. 1 to 5 is extinguished by the statute of limitation. 2. We have the power, if we considered it desirable, to appoint additional trustees, but in the circumstances of the case we considered it both unecessary and undesirable to appoint any additional trustees, either from amongst the Thengalais or from amongst the Sthalathars. 3. It is necessary to control the management of the affairs of the temple by the trustees and that we would be prepared to consider any measure that might be proposed for the purpose.
Final Decision: The court settled a scheme providing for the periodical stock-taking of the moveable properties of the temple, for the receipt and custody of the offerings and the incomes of the temple, for the auditing of accounts and certain other matters.
1. This is a suit for the settlement of a scheme for the management of the temple of Sri Devarajaswami at Conjeevaram and the shrines attached to it. The temple is one of the most ancient and famous in Southern India. It has unfortunately been also the source of constant and bitter litigation for a very long period of time, not less than a century. The suit has been instituted by certain members of a group of families known as the Thathachars who are all said to be the descendants of one Koti Kanyakadanam Thatha Desikar, a famous scholar who is reputed to have been the. priest of Sri Krishna Devaraya, the Rajah of the Carnatic. The original defendants were also members of the same family. Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 are admittedly trustees of the temple and the 19th defendant also claims to have been validly appointed as trustee by a mediator who is alleged to have possessed the power to appoint him. According to the rules of the institution prevailing at the time of the suit, the temple was to be administered by five trustees. These trustees admittedly were to be ordinarily elected by members of the families of the Thathachars, the mediator, it is stated, having the right to fill up the vacancy if the Thathachars fail to exercise their right of election. Defendants Nos. 5 to 8 are the sons of the 1st defendant. Defendants Nos. 10 to 15 are other Thathachars who were subsequently added as parties. According to the plaint, the Dharmakartha Mirasi right i.e. the hereditary right of Dharmakartcaship, belonged to the family descended from Kotikanyakadanam Thatha Desikar (whom we shall hereafter refer to as Thatha Desikar.) But this contention was given up before us at the hearing of the appeal and nothing more was claimed for the members of the Thathachar families generally than the right to elect trustees and certain rights of interference beyond what ordinary worshippers possessed. The 1st defendant and his sons and certain other families of Thathachars claimed the exclusive right of trusteeship. The plaint after referring to the history of the management of the temple, referred to the present condition of affairs which was stated to be extremely unsatisfactory and set out various acts of non-feasance, misfeasance and malfeasance on the part of the trustees and stated that a scheme has been framed by Sir V.C. Desika Chariar, then a leading Vakil in Madras (now one of the Judges of the Presidency Small Cause Court) and assented to by about 100 members of the family. But defendants Nos. 1 and 4 to 8 and 9th defendant expressed their dissent while 18 others expressed neither their assent nor their dissent. The plaint then refers to the absolute necessity for a scheme and prays for the settlement of a scheme either by adopting the scheme settled by Sir V.C. Desika Chariar or by framing a new one and for certain other incidental reliefs. Although the necessity for a scheme was not agreed to at first by all the defendants, the District Judge in his judgment says that it was not seriously disputed by any of the defendants that some scheme of management should be settled and that it was admitted in the course of the hearing that the trustees were not doing their work properly. He also observes that the principal objection urged to the scheme framed by Sir V.C. Desika Chariar. was that it proceeded on the basis that the Thathachar family as a whole had the right to the management of the temple and that its provisions were intended to strengthen the position of the family and to see that the trustees obeyed what was dictated by the family as whole or by one nominated by them as middleman or arbitrator. Defendants Nos. 1 and 5 to 8 stoutly opposed this claim and contended that the trusteeship belonged to their own family. The District Judge held that it was beyond the scope of the suit, which was for the framing of a scheme, to go into the question of the exclusive right set up by defendants Nos. 1 and 5 to 8 and he refused to do so. Th
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
