Ramanathan V. Kurukkal

Present: Lascelles C.J. and Grenier J.

RAMANATHAN v. KURUKKAL.

273-D. C. Colombo, 32,154.

Hindu temple-Trustee's power to dismiss officiating priest-Customary law-Indian usages.

A trustee of a Hindu temple was held to be entitled to dismiss the officiating priest of the temple.

Grenier J.-Hindu temples in Ceylon are under the control and management of persons in whom the fabric is vested (1) by right of private ownership; (2) by grant or assignment of the owners of the land on which the temple is built; (3) by appointment by the congregation; (4) by deed of trust.

In India and Ceylon certain customary laws are recognized and observed as applying to the manager or trustee, not only in his capacity as such, but in his fiduciary relation to the congregation, in matters affecting the temporalities of the temple and their proper appropriation.

It is not right to say that there is no law in this country which recognizes the status of the manager or trustee of a Hindu temple. There is the Hindu customary law.. . . Whether these customs and usages have been imported from India, or have grown up amongst the Hindus of the country and possess the sanctity of age, their existence cannot be overlooked.

Lascelles C.J.-I do not understand the decision in Sivapragasam v. Swaminathar Aiyar 1 to go to the length of deciding that Indian customary law cannot be resorted to for the purpose of ascertaining the powers and duties of an essentially Indian institution.

THE facts appear from the judgment.

Elliott, for defendant, appellant.

H. A. Jayewardene, for the plaintiff, respondent.

The following authorities were cited at the argument: Sivapragasam v. Swaminathar Aiyar,1 Saravanamuttu v. Sinnappu Aiyar,2 Kurrukal v. Kurrukal.3

Cur. adv. vult.

September 29, 1911. Lascelles C.J.-

This appeal raises a question with regard to the powers of a trustee of a Hindu temple to dismiss the kurukkal or officiating

1 (1905) 2 Bal. 49.                                     2 (1906) 10 N. L. R. 58.

3 (1892) 1 S. C. R. 354.

priest of the temple. The plaintiff contends that he, as trustee, had the right to appoint, and did in fact appoint, the defendant to be the kurukkal of the Siva Supramania Swamy temple, and that the defendant was lawfully dismissed by him. The defendant, on the other hand, contends that the right of appointing the kurukkal was vested in the congregation, and that he was in fact appointed by the congregation, and that the representative of the plaintiff, as regards his appointment, did no more than invite him to assume duty acting for and on behalf of the congregation. I do not understand the decision in Sivapragasam v. Swaminathar Aiyar 1 to go to the length of deciding that Indian customary law cannot be resorted to for the purpose of ascertaining the powers and duties of an essentially Indian institution. If, indeed, this is the effect of the decision, I confess that I am unable to see on what principle it can be supported. I mention this consideration, as a reference to the custom which prevails in India with regard to the management of Sivite temples would probably have readily disposed of the matter in dispute. There is very little local authority on the question, but in Sivapragasam v. Swaminathar Aiyar 1 the Court was satisfied on the evidence that the priests were merely the monthly paid servants of the temple, and it must be within the experience of all who have had experience of such matters in Ceylon that this is frequently, if not generally, the position of the priests of Sivite temples. The evidence as to the appointment of the defendant is fairly clear. I think the appellant has made too much of the discrepancy between the plaintiff's statement that he appointed the defendant and the fact that the appointment was made by one of the plaintiff's sons during the plaintiff's absence from Ceylon, for it was admitted by the defendant himself in action No. 52,781 that he

Click Here to Read the rest of this document