SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1927 Supreme(Mad) 523

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Wallace
V.K. Kelu Achan
Versus
C.S. Sivarama Pattar Karikar And
Decided On : 17 October, 1927

The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the public character of the temple based on evidence of dedication, actual user, and public repute, as well as the court's decision to appoint defendant 1 as the sole trustee with conditions for restitution and the option for the plaintiffs to apply for the appointment of a new trustee if the restitutions are not made within six months.

Headnote:

Trusteeship - Temple Management - Section 92, Civil P.C. - 1464, 1772, 1810, 1866 - The court discussed the history and characteristics of the temple to determine whether it is public or private. The judgment emphasized the evidence of dedication, actual user, and public repute. The court found strong evidence of public character and user of the temple, concluding that it is a public temple. The court also addressed charges of maladministration and breach of trust, finding defendant 1 not personally responsible for the losses sustained by the trust. The court declined to order a general rendition of accounts and found defendant 1 fit to remain as trustee, subject to fulfilling specified terms. The court also decided to bring the trust under a properly framed scheme of management, appointing defendant 1 as the sole trustee with conditions for restitution, and allowing the plaintiffs to apply for the appointment of a new trustee if the restitutions are not made within six months.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved an appeal from the judgment of the Sub Court, Palghat in a suit under Section 92, Civil P.C., to remove the defendants from the trusteeship of the plaint temple and to prescribe a scheme for its management. The main issue was whether the temple is public or private. The court discussed the history and characteristics of the temple to determine its nature.

Finding of the Court:

The court found strong evidence of public character and user of the temple, concluding that it is a public temple. The court also addressed charges of maladministration and breach of trust, finding defendant 1 not personally responsible for the losses sustained by the trust. The court declined to order a general rendition of accounts and found defendant 1 fit to remain as trustee, subject to fulfilling specified terms. The court also decided to bring the trust under a properly framed scheme of management, appointing defendant 1 as the sole trustee with conditions for restitution, and allowing the plaintiffs to apply for the appointment of a new trustee if the restitutions are not made within six months.

Issues: The main issue was whether the temple is public or private. Other issues included charges of maladministration and breach of trust, defendant's fitness to remain as trustee, and the framing of a scheme for the management of the trust.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the evidence of dedication, actual user, and public repute to determine the public character of the temple. It declined to order a general rendition of accounts and found defendant 1 fit to remain as trustee, subject to fulfilling specified terms. The court also decided to bring the trust under a properly framed scheme of management, appointing defendant 1 as the sole trustee with conditions for restitution, and allowing the plaintiffs to apply for the appointment of a new trustee if the restitutions are not made within six months.

Final Decision: The court concluded that the temple is a public temple and found defendant 1 fit to remain as trustee, subject to fulfilling specified terms. The court also decided to bring the trust under a properly framed scheme of management, appointing defendant 1 as the sole trustee with conditions for restitution, and allowing the plaintiffs to apply for the appointment of a new trustee if the restitutions are not made within six months.

JUDGMENT

Wallace, J.

1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Sub Court, Palghat in a suit under Section 92, Civil P.C., to remove the defendants from the trusteeship of the plaint temple and to prescribe a scheme for its management. The temple is that of Viswanathaswami. situated at the side of the Kalpathi river in Palghat. Admittedly it has been for a long time in the management of the defendants edom which is the Valia, Konikkal edom. Defendant 1 was sued, originally as the karnavan of that edom and defendant 2 as the actual manager of the temple affairs appointed as such by a tarwad karar. During the course of the suit, in July 1922, defendant 2 died, and defendant 1 succeeded him in the management of the temple. Defendant 1 therefore before us holds the double position of the karnavan of the Edom and the manager of the temple. Defendant 3 was added as the senior anandravan of the tarwad on the death of defendant 2. The plaintiffs are representative Brahmins from four villages, which lie round about the temple, from, which the officiating priests of the temple are drawn. They are in origin. East Coast Pattar Brahmins and not Nambudris of the West Coast. They are-representative worshippers and sue as. such. The claim in the plaint that the trusteeship was vested in the permanent residents of these villages and that the defendants edom has been managing only with their permission and subject, to their control. This was a subsidiary, issue to the main important issue,, namely, whether the temple is a public or a private one. Plaintiffs contend that it is public; the defendants that is it a. purely private institution in which the public have neither interests nor rights This was the first issue in the case. Issues 2, 3 and 4 are not pressed here. Issues 5 and 6 relate to specific charges of breaches of trust and issue 7 to the framing of a scheme. We shall take up issue 1 and before we come to discuss it one or two general remarks fall to be, made.

2. First we must rid ourselves of any notion that the idea of a private temple-is foreign to, or the fact of a private temple uncommon in, the Malabar-country. With its large family corporations or tarwads numbering hundreds of individuals it would be a very natural thing if such a corporation should establish and maintain a private temple for the use of themselves; and this in fact has often happened, as stated in most treatises on Malabar law and polity. Cases have also come up before this Court from the West Coast in which both sides have admitted a particular institution to be a private temple: see Vegnarama Dikshatar v. Gopala Pattar [1918] 8 M.L.W. 357, Raim Nambiar v. Narayana Nambiar [1911] 21 M.L.J. 585, and Appu Pattar v. Kurumba Umma [1911] 21 M.L.J. 588. But having premised this caution we must add there is certainly no presumption of law or fact that a temple in Malabar is either public or private. It will depend on the facts proved in each case. In our view it follows from this that evidence of comparison of the architecture, ritual, processions, gods, etc., in this temple with those of other temples either on the West Coast or elsewhere is not only irrelevant but may be misleading, and the Subordinate Judge has not sufficiently guarded against this. It is true that he ruled out, quite properly, by his order dated 16th October 1922, during the examination of D. W. 14, the first witness examined by this Judge, such comparative evidence regarding, for example the size of the lingam, prakarams, mantapams, Sri koils, Vigrahams, car and ear festivals, but unfortunately in judgment he has not carried out his own principle, and has relied, for example, on the size of the lingam, the form of puja, the number of times the puja is celebrated in the temple, the ritual and the architectural style as compared with those in other temples: see paras 9, 33, 40 and 51 of his judgment. To admit evidence of this sort is merely to add a further element of uncertainty to the case.

3. Wh

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top