Velupillai Arumogam V. Saravanamuttu Ponnasamy

Present: Bertram C.J. and Garvin J.

VELUPILLAI ARUMOGAM et al. v. SARAVANAMUTTU PONNASAMY.

74-D. C. Jaffna, 14,577.

    Hindu Temple-Action by members of congregation-Removal of hereditary manager-Hindu law and custom-Trusts Ordinance, No. 9 of 19111 section 102.

Where the members of the congregation of a Hindu temple sued the hereditary manager of the temple for a declaration that they are entitled to the management of the temple, for the removal of the hereditary manager, and for the settlement of a scheme for the management of the temple and its temporalities.

Held, that the claim for the removal of the hereditary manager could not be sustained. The object of section 102 of the Trusts Ordinance is not to alter the religious law and custom by which Hindu temples are governed, but to give effect to that law and custom.

Held, further, that the plaintiffs were entitled to a declaration that the temple and the lands, with which it was endowed, were subject to a charitable trust within the meaning of the Trusts Ordinance, and also to an order settling a scheme for the management of the temple in accordance with existing religious law and custom, with the defendant as trustee.

ACTION brought by a number of worshippers at a Hindu temple,  in pursuance of a certificate of the Government Agent issued under sub-section (4) of section 102 of the Trusts Ordinance, against the hereditary manager of the temple for a declaration that the congregation of the temple should be entitled to manage the affairs of the temple and its temporalities, that the defendant be removed from his office, and that a scheme be settled by the Court for the management of the temple.

It was proved that one Saravanamuttu, a descendant of the original founder and father of the present defendant was the undisputed manager of the temple in 1860. In that year public subscriptions were raised to rebuild the temple, and Saravanamuttu acted as " Conductor of Works."

In 1890, it appeared, that a public meeting of the congregation was convened, and a committee appointed for the purpose of

managing the temple and performing the daily poojas. Saravanamuttu having first purported to accept the managership of the temple from the new committee, re-acquired control of the temple within a year, and dispensed with the assistance of the committee.

In 1907 he executed a deed reciting the previous history of the temple, appointing his two sons, Ponnasamy, the present defendant, and Sivamsampoe to be managers of the temple along with him, and after his death with remainder to their male descendants in succession. The learned District Judge dismissed the plaintiffs' action and declared the defendant to be the rightful manager of the Temple, ordering him at the same time to keep a proper account of the money coming to his hands.

Balasingham (with him Spencer Rajaratnam), for plaintiffs, appellants.

Arulanandan (with him James Joseph), for defendant, respondent.

November 17, 1924. BERTRAM C. J.

This is an action of a very interesting character. It is instituted by a number of worshippers at a Hindu temple in the Jaffna District on behalf of themselves and other worshippers, against a person who claims to be proprietor and hereditary manager of the temple. It is brought under section 102 of " The Trusts Ordinance, No. 9 of 1917," in pursuance of a certificate of the Government Agent under sub-section (4) of that section. The prayer of the plaintiffs is that " the temple should be declared a charitable trust, and that the congregation of the worshippers of the said temple should be entitled to manage the affairs of the temple and its temporalities, that the defendant be declared not entitled to assert the right to the management of the temple, and that if the Court finds he has any right, that he should be dismissed from his office, and that a scheme be settled by the Court for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document