Kurukal V. Kurukal

Present: Mr. Justice Wendt and Mr. Justice Grenier.

KURUKAL v. KURUKAL et al.

D. C., Jaffna, 4, 484.

Hindu temple-Position of a manager-Rights of heirs of owner of land dedicated to a temple.

By the law of inheritance under the Thesawalama the plaintiff and the two defendants became entitled each to a one-third share of the land on which a temple stood. But one Parupathe Amma exercised for several years the office of manager of this temple, -

Held, that in the absence of any rule of positive law on the subject of the rights of management of Hindu temples and their temporalities, and also in the absence of any regular deed of appointment in favour of Parupathe Amma by the members of congregation of the temple in question, it was difficult to assign to Parupathe Amma the distinct legal character of a trustee as the term is understood in our law. Her true and only position was that of do facto manager during her lifetime, and she acquired no prescriptive rights. And on her death, by the Jaw of inheritance under the Thesawalamai, the plaintiff and the two defendants each became entitled to a one-third share of the land on which the temple stood, and also to one-third share of the income and produce of the temple and its temporalities.

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Judge. The facts fully appear in the judgments.

Van Langenberg, for the plaintiff, appellant. The Hon. Mr. Kanagasabai, for the defendants, respondents.

Cur. adv. vult.

November 14, 1908. Grenier J. -

The facts material to this appeal are briefly these. The plaintiff claimed to be the sole manager and trustee of the temple called Muttuvinayakapillaia Kovil, and alleged that the defendants, whom he had appointed co-trustees and managers with himself by deed No. 6, 664, dated December 18, 1902, and whose appointment he had cancelled by deed No. 823, dated June 2, 1903, continued to be in possession of the temple and premises, and had unlawfully taken and appropriated to themselves the income and produce thereof, which the plaintiff estimated at Rs. 10 per mensem. The defendants pleaded, amongst other matters, that their appointment by the deed of 1902 was irrevocable, and they claimed to be entitled to two-thirds share of the trusteeship and management of the temple and premises, conceding to the plaintiff the remaining one-third share. There have been two trials in this case. At the first trial the issues agreed upon were: -

(1) Had the plaintiff the right to revoke the deed of 1902?

(2) Was the deed of revocation valid ?

(3) Was there consideration for the deed of 1902 ?

(4) Is it irrevocable whether there was consideration or not ?

The District Judge held that the deed of 1902 was not revocable, and without calling on the defendants dismissed the action. He did not deal with the 3rd and 4th issues. This Court sent the case back for trial on the 3rd and 4th issues and on the further issue: " Was the deed of 1894 wholly or partially invalid as against the defendants, and are the defendants entitled to share in the management of the temple and property as heirs of Suppiah Muttuswamy Aiyer ? "

The facts are fully stated in the judgment of the Chief Justice, and it is needless for me therefore to repeat them, except so far as they are relevant to the present appeal. It would appear that the temple in question was founded by Suppiah Muttuswamy Aiyer and his wife Parupathe Amma between the years 1860 and 1867. The temple now stands on property partly belonging to two persons, Samugam Aiyer Ananda Chuppayier and his wife Sirapayi Amma, who executed a transfer for the same " in the name of the Pilliyai Temple" on June 1, 1870. The whole of the land on which the temple stands is in extent 7 1/8 lachams. The deed of June 1, 1870, covers an extent of 3 1/8 lachams. The rest of the land, as found by the District Judge and as the evidence shows, belonged to Muttuswamy Aiyer and his two brothers Sanmugam Kur

Click Here to Read the rest of this document