Trusteeship of religious entities must remain connected to the community they serve, ensuring management aligns with beneficiaries' interests.

Collin Lawrence Sequerah JC:

A) Introduction

[1] This is a case involving a dispute regarding the management and administration of a temple known as the Sri Muniswarar Temple ("hereinafter, the temple") located at Jalan Baru, Seberang Perai Tengah, Penang.

[2] The main issue in this trial is whether there is misfeasance or mismanagement in the administration of the affairs of the temple by the present trustees who comprise the present Defendant's in this suit, as a result of which the Plaintiff's have claimed for certain reliefs.

B) Salient Facts Of The Case

[3] The Plaintiffs are members of a registered unincorporated association known as Persatuan Kebajikan Bekas Pekerja-Pekerja dan Pemastautin Tetap Ladang Perai, Pulau Pinang ("the Association")

[4] The Association is registered under the Societies Act 1966 . The Plaintiffs, at all material times and at the commencement of this suit, held the position of Chairman and Secretary respectively in the Association. The Defendants are trustees of the temple.

[5] The First Defendant is one of three original trustees who were appointed vide letters dated 21 September 1970 and 28 September 1970 issued by Batu Kawan Rubber and Coconut Plantation Ltd.

[6] The Second Defendant was appointed by the First Defendant somewhere in 1980s. The Third, Fourth and Fifth Defendants were appointed vide a Trust Deed dated 21 May 2008.

[7] It is contended by the Plaintiff's, although disputed by the Defendant's, that the said temple was built by the workers from the Perai Estate. The Perai Estate comprised vast acres of land in Province Wellesley, now Seberang Perai.

[8] The said Perai Estate was owned and managed by a British entity known as Plantation Agencies Ltd. The agricultural produce cultivated in the plantation consisted of commercial crops such as rubber trees and coconut palm.

[9] Migrant labourers were brought in from the southern region of India to work in the plantation. Most of these workers were Tamil speaking Indians who professed the Hindu faith. The workers came with their families and resided within the area of the plantation.

[10] There is a dispute regarding when exactly the temple was built and who had constructed the said temple. It however is not in dispute that prior to the takeover of the plantation by the State Government, the temple was managed and maintained by the workers of the Perai Estate.

[11] With a view to maintaining the said temple, the workers made monthly contribution through deductions from their earnings. The fund was utilised for the benefit of the temple.

[12] The administration, management and maintenance of the temple were continued by the descendants of these workers who worked at the Perai Estate. The workers then set up a committee that was entrusted the task of administering, managing and maintaining the temple. The committee consisted of workers who were elected for the purpose.

[13] In the 1940s, the ownership of the Perai Estate was transferred to another British corporate entity known as the Batu Kawan Rubber and Coconut Plantation Ltd. The administration, management and welfare of the temple were undertaken by the aforementioned committee.

[14] The temple attracted huge number of devotees from within and outside Perai Estate. Whatever contributions received from the devotees of the temple were placed in an account kept by the said Batu Kawan Rubber and Coconut Plantation Ltd.

[15] Batu Kawan Rubber and Coconut Plantation Ltd became the trustee of the temple's movable and immovable assets. The trusteeship was for the benefit of the workers of Perai Estate. In the year 1970, the land on which the Ladang Perai stood was taken over by the Penang State Government.

[16] Subsequently, the Batu Kawan Rubber and Coconut Plantatio