A person who has once been removed as a hereditary trustee cannot be reappointed. However, in the present case, the petitioner's wife had been appointed as the hereditary trustee in his place and that the petitioner had been assisting his wife in discharging the functions of the hereditary trustee. The court found that the petitioner had de facto status as the hereditary trustee and that the respondents were obliged to take notice of this and accordingly permit the de jure hereditary trustee to function through the petitioner.

1. The 2nd respondent herein had removed the petitioner from the office of the hereditary Trustee of a Hindu Temple and its properties vide order dt. 10.5.1953. The petitioners challenge to the said removal had failed to bring in any favourable result. After removing the petitioner, the 2nd respondent had appointed the petitioners wife as hereditary trustee. Later on, however, the petitioners wife found it difficult to manage the affairs of the Trust and the petitioner started assisting her. As advised, to avoid any misunderstanding, the petitioner had applied for being appointed once again as hereditary Trustee. He was supported in this behalf by his wife, who for all purposes had left the affairs of the temple for being managed by the petitioner. The same, however, has been declined by the impugned order in G.O.Ms. No. 1348 dt. 5.12.1984 of the Commercial Taxes and Hindu Religious Endowment Department. The petitioners revision before the Government has been dismissed.

2. In the counter filed on behalf of the respondents it is stated that the petitioner was the hereditry Trustee, certain charges were framed against him under S. 45(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 by the then Deputy Commissioner of the Department and when the charges were found proved, removed from the office. He appealed against the said order and his appeal failed. He preferred a writ petition before this Court (WP. 803 of 1954) and that also failed. His wife, however, has been accepted has a hereditary trustee pursuant to a direction by this Court in a petition filed by her in WP. No. 855 of 1958. There was some attempt and it seems another proceeding came by way of a suit when there was a proceeding to remove the petitioners wife from the office of the hereditary Trustee, but she was ever since continued as a hereditary Trustee. Petitioner has been making attempts to get himself reappointed as the hereditary Trustee and for the said purpose, he made an application before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent has declined, however, to appoint him again as hereditary Trustee, for, a person who has once been removed cannot be reappointed as hereditary Trustee. It however, transpires from the record that petitioners appointment as hereditary Trustee came under a scheme which has been settled by this Court in CS. No. 656 of 1948 as modified by an order dt. 8.1.1952. His removal, however, was caused on account of his showing in the account books of the temple, expenditure amounting to Rs. 1,706/- on litigation in CS. No. 656 of 1948. His removal for the said act, however, has become final. It is not possible on the facts aforementioned to find fault with the order of the 2nd respondent and that of the Government that he who has once been removed should not be appointed again as the hereditary Trustee.

3. Facts of this case, however, have one peculiar feature. When the petitioner was removed from the office of the hereditary Trustee, his wife succeeded him and she has been appointed as the hereditary Trustee. It can be presumed and it is conceded at the Bar that the right as to the hereditary Trustee for the family of the petitioner has not been denied and that is shown by the appointment of his wife in his place, and in case, any other appointment is required, it shall go to the family, viz. to any son or daughter of the petitioner. While any independent right for the petitioners wife to act on her own and hold any office including the one, of the hereditary Trustee of the temple is not disputed and cannot be disputed. It has always been recognised as a practice prevailing in this country that ordinarily womenfolk transact all their business through the male folk and in all affairs concerning them as a member of a family, whether a Hindu family or a Muslim family, they are represented by a male member of the family. It is more true for a wife that she acts as the consort of her husband and does nothing which goe