The legal framework applied by the Court emphasized the necessity for just cause and procedural regularity in the removal and appointment of trustees, competency of the appointing body, and the sufficiency of cause for dismissal.

Wallis, C.J.

1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Temporary Subordinate Court of Vellore giving the plaintiffs a decree in a suit brought by them as trustees appointed by the Devasthanam Committee for a declaration that they are lawfully appointed dharmakarthaa and are entitled to be in possession of the trust properties. Defendants Nos. 9 to 11 had been removed by the Temple Committee for misconduct and in their written statements they have denied misconduct and contested validity of the plaintiffs appointment. They would he entitled to succeed if they established either of these cases. The view taken in this Court as to these trusteeships in, that they are in the nature of free-hold offering held under a Corporation, and in England, to justify the removal of a free hold officer during good behaviour, it must be shown that he has been removed and removed by competent authority and with due observance of the rules of natural justice and also for cause which is sufficient to justify his removal. On these principles, this Court, in a suit such as the present, has allowed the dismissed trustees, as defendants, to question their own dismissal beth in point of procedure and in point of cause and also the regularity of the appointments of their next successors the plaintiffs. The cases are Chinna Rangaiyangar v. Sabbraya Mudali 3 M.H.C.R. 334 and Chinna Rangaiyangar v. Subbraya Mudali 3 M.H.C.R. 338 which are two stages of the same case. There this Court called for a finding as to whether the trustee had been guilty of the alleged misconduct. The law is laid down to the same effect in Pethadri Ayyangar v. Nataraja Ayyar 21 M. 179 : 7 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 483 to which Mr. Justine Shepherd was a party In these cases, the Court appears to have re-tried the question whether the removed trustees had in facts been guilty of misconduct which justified their removal. It is unnecessary to express any final opinion the question whether the Court is at liberty to go into (be whole question or to confine itself to seeing whether the cause for which the Committee has removed the trustees was a sufficient came in law, because in the present case, for reasons which I shall state, we are of opinion that a just cause of removal had in fact been proved by the evidence in the case.

2. As I have said, defendants NOS. 9 to 11 contended that they were not properly removed on two grounds, the first being that defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the members of the Committee who removed them, were not competent to do so. Following the analogy of law with respect to corporate offices in England, this Court has held that such removals and appointments must be made by a majority of the Temple Committee. With reference to the English law on the question, I may merely refer to a case which was one of the removal of the Recorder of Ipswich who held it during good behaviour. Vide Reg. v. Ipswich Corporation (1706) 2 Ld. Raym. 1288 : 92 E.R. 342. At the time in question there were five members of this Temple Committee and the defendants have set up that the third defendant was not a duly appointed member and that consequently his vote must be ignored, with the result that they were only removed by two out of the four members of the Committee.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Varada Chariar, who appeared for the plaintiffs, has sailed our attention to the case of Scaddling v. Lorant (1706) 2 Ld. Raym. 1283 : 92 B.R. 312, where the Statute required a rate to be levied by at least seven Vestrymen and it was alleged that one of these seven who imposed the rate was only de facto and not a de jure Vestryman and the House of Lords consulted the Judges as to whether the objection, if made out, would affect the validity of the rate, and the Judges unanimously answered, mainly on grounds of convenience, that it would not and that answer was accepted by the House of Lords. Mr. Varda Chariar has also sailed our attention to the fact that this principle has been accepted in America