Jurisdiction and satisfaction of the authorities under the Act.

Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.-

This is an appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent from the judgment of Jagadisan, J., setting aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore in O.S. No. 82 of 1957 and restoring the scheme framed by the authorities functioning under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act with respect to a specific endowment attached to Sri Kailasanathar Temple at Villupuram. By his will, dated 21st March, 1923, Ganesa Mudaliar, the husband of the appellant, endowed certain properties, the income from which was to be devoted for the performance of an utsavam in the local Perumal temple, for the performance of certain pujas and utsavam in Sri Kailasanathar Temple, and for the Gurupuja of Saint Manickavachagar. By the same document, he appointed his wife, Navaneethammal (the appellant herein), to be the trustee, investing her with a right to nominate her successor ; the successors too were to have a similar right of nomination of the next trustee. Soon after Ganesa Mudaliar's death, his agnate, the second respondent to this appeal, repudiated the will and he appears to have got possession of the properties by trespassing upon them. He even effected certain alienations of the properties. The appellant then took a number of proceedings, and succeeded, after a sustained effort, in recovering possession of those properties. Soon thereafter, without even waiting to see whether or not the appellant was going to perform the charities as directed under her husband's will, the Deputy Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Coimbatore, acting on the basis of a report by the Assistant Commissioner, initiated proceedings for framing a scheme on the ground that there had been a mismanagement by the trustee. The proceedings thus initiated appear to have been inspired by the second respondent, who failed in his attempt to secure the property for himself, and between whom and the appellant not much cordiality exists. It was the elementary duty of the Deputy Commissioner to have considered whether there was any justification for a scheme. There was, however, no attempt in that direction. Stating that the appellant had not explained about the alienation of the properties, that authority framed the usual scheme containing within it a power in the appropriate authority to associate two non-hereditary trustees with her in the management,-thus effectually reducing the appellant's voice in the management to nothing. Little did the Deputy Commissioner realise that the alienation of the endowed property was not effected by the appellant, but by the second respondent who was claiming a title adverse to the endowment. Nor does the Deputy Commissioner appear to have been conscious of the fact that the appellant, far from alienating the property, actually recovered the same for the Trust. This extremely unsatisfactory disposal of the matter was not even noticed by the Commissioner, on appeal. The order of that authority, which savours of a cavalier way of disposal of things, purported to sustain the scheme on the ground that the religious services in the temple were not performed for a long time,-a matter which, if investigated, could have shown that the appellant was in no way responsible-and that the Assistant Commissioner had reported about the irregularities in the management. But neither of the two officers appears to have even noticed that the appellant had not even been told of any remissness on her part which justified a scheme and the association of the other trustees with her to enable her to answer the charge. Indeed, the only documents, that we find in this case to sustain a scheme are Exhibits A-3 and A-5, the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner, and his own order. Exhibit A-3 states:

“Whereas the Deputy Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments is of opinion that, in the interest of the proper and better administration of the abovesaid specific endowment, a schem