Karthigasu Ambalawanar V. Subramaniar Kathiravelu

Present: Bertram C.J. and Jayewardene A.J.

KARTHIGASU AMBALAWANAR et al. v. SUBRAMANIAR KATHIRAVELU et al.

30-D. C. Jaffna, 16,481.

    Hindu religious trust-Right of de facto trustee to obtain possession of temporalities-Personality of religious foundations-Disputes between persons vested with legal title to endowments-Vesting order-Trusts Ordinance, ss. 101,102, and 112.

The de facto trustee of a Hindu temple is not entitled as such to obtain possession, of its temporalities.
Our law does not recognize the personality of religious foundations.

When a person transfers property to a temple, the effect of his doing so is to constitute himself a trustee for the purpose of religious worship to be carried on at the temple The document of dedication amounts to a declaration of trust and the dominium vests with the dedicator and passes on his death to his heirs subject to the trust.

The provision in section 101 of the Trusts Ordinance which reserves the right of a trustee to apply to the Court for directions regulating the administration of the trust or succession to the trusteeship applies to religious trusts as well.

Where two families descending from a common origin had a joint interest in a Hindu temple and had participated in its management for some fifty years, by reason of the fact that each had been vested with title to a share of the endowment; and where disputes had arisen between them regarding the management of the temple and the endowments,

Held, that the appropriate remedy for the settlement of the affairs of the temple would be a vesting order under section 112 of the Trusts Ordinance, enumerating the temple properties in charge of the two groups and vesting the respective sets of property in trustees representing the respective groups.
The order should give directions regarding the devolution of trusteeship, and it should be registered in accordance with sub section (3) of the section.

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Judge of Jaffna. The action was brought by the plaintiffs, as joint-managers and trustees of a Hindu temple, claiming a declaration of title that the twelve lands scheduled in the plaint are the property of the temple, and an order that the defendants should be ejected therefrom. It was proved that the temple had been originally built on land belonging to one Kathirnayake Mudaliyar, who left two sons, named Ulaganather and Vinayagar. The present contestants are the descendants of these two persons. The evidence further disclosed that these two lines of the descendants of Kathirnayake had for very many years

 taken an active interest in the temple and its endowments as shown by a series of deeds ; in the case of the plaintiffs from 1873 to 1901, and the case of the defendants from 1870 to 1905. It also appeared that as a result of some friction between the two branches of the family, a trust deed had been drawn by the defendants' branch in 1905 to consolidate their position with regard to the management of the endowments. This was followed in 1916 by a similar deed of appointment and trust on the plaintiffs' line, by which the first and second plaintiffs were appointed managers and trustees of the temple.

It was also established that the properties set out in the schedule to the plaint had been in the exclusive and undisturbed possession of the defendants' branch of the family for twenty-five years ; and that out of the revenues of these lands they had contributed a share of the funds necessary for the support of the poojahs of the temple.

The learned District Judge having found that the first and second plaintiffs were the de facto managers of the temple entered a decree declaring the lands in the schedule to be the property of the temple, and directing the defendants to be ejected therefrom and the plaintiffs be put and quieted in possession.

Drieberg, K.C. (with him Joseph), for d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document