GOVERNMENT AGENT, NORTHERN PROVINCE, v. PARARAJASINGHAM.

GOVERNMENT AGENT, NORTHERN PROVINCE,

v. PARARAJASINGHAM.

D. C., Jaffna, 2,467.

Hindu temple-Acquisition of glebe land for public purpose-Price brought into Court by Government Agent in land acquisition case-Claims to trusteeship of temple-Duty of Court to see that price is not expended for mere temporary purposes.

Where money was brought into Court as the value of a land which belonged to a Hindu temple and had been acquired by the Government under the Land Acquisition Ordinance, and several parties claimed the proceeds, each alleging himself to be a trustee of the temple,-

Held, that the question of trusteeship of the temple should be settled in the very case in which the money was brought into Court, and that if paid out, the Court should take care that the money, representing the value of glebe land, was not expended for mere temporary purposes, but in some way that will permanently benefit the charity.

IN this case the issue was, which of the defendants were entitled to draw the money brought into Court by the plaintiff as the value of the land acquired by the Government under the Land Acquisition Ordinance.

The District Judge ordered that the money should remain in Court till the dispute between the defendants regarding the trusteeship of the temple, which each of them professed to hold, and by virtue of which each claimed the money, should be settled in a separate case. He made this order relying upon a judgment of the Supreme Court delivered in case No. 2,096 of the District Court of Jaffna.

The defendants in that case, who were defendants in this case also, having disputed among themselves as to who were entitled to the management of this very temple, the District Judge found that the first defendant was the de facto manager, and ordered the money brought into Court by the Government Agent as the value of the land acquired in that case to be paid to him. But Bonser, C.J., reversed that order as follows: " In my opinion the fund in Court should not be so paid out. It should be paid out to a person in the position of a trustee of the temple who can safely be trusted to expend it, not for mere temporary purposes, but in some way that will permanently benefit the charity. The order will be that the money, remain in Court until application be made by some person legally entitled to receive it." And Lawrie, J., concurring with the Chief Justice, said: "We have not entered into the question whether the first defendant is manager of the temple, but assuming he is, he is not entitled to draw the money and to spend it as he chooses. The money is the price of glebe land. The Court

below must keep it in its hand until some one interested satisfies the Court how the money can best be spent, either by buying a bit of land, or by repairing the edifice, or by erecting a new building."

The District Judge, finding that no trustee had been appointed, and that the money brought into Court in that case still remained there, held as follows in the present case:

" In the face of this judgment of the Supreme Court, it would be mere waste of time to hear evidence as regards the management of the temple. I can only repeat the order made by the Supreme Court in case No. 2,096."

The first defendant appealed against this order.

Sampayo, appearing for appellant, cited Changarapillai v. Chelliah (5 N. L. R. 270), and argued that the first defendant was entitled to lead evidence in the present case to prove his allegation

that he was trustee and manager, and as such entitled to draw the money in deposit.

Ramanathan, S.G., for the respondents.-As Bonser, C.J., had ordered in case No. 2,096 that " the money should remain in Court until application be made by some person legally entitled to it," it was the duty of the first defendant to have proceeded summarily under sections 595 and 582 of the Civil Procedure Code, by " applying " to the District Court to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document