V H SUBRAMANIA VADIAR, TRUSTEE OF VATAKANTHARA THIRUVENGATAPPAN DEVASWAM AND THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SAID VILLAGERS Vs. SREENIVASA VADIAR, SECRETARY, SREE KRISHNA BHAJANA MADOM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two points raised in this second appeal are those set. out for determination in the lower appellate Court. They are these: (1) Whether the Bhajana Madham in question is an institution appertaining to Thiruvengatappan Devaswom, of which the plaintiff is trustee; (2) If not, whether the plaintiff is entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in the plaint as a representative of the villagers of Vadakanthara Village. Both these points were decided against the appellant in the Courts below.

(2.) The first point is one of fact. The learned advocate for the appellant criticises the judgment of the lower appellate Court and points out that some of the documents have not received sufficient consideration. He points out, for example, such a sentence as this: Ex. P-1 to P-6, P-8 and P-11 relied on by the plaintiff do not in any way help the plaintiff's case. He contends that this is a very improper way of dealing with these important documents. It is to be remembered, however, that the judgment of the lower appellate Court was a concurring one. In view of the fact that the learned District Munsiff discussed the whole case very thoroughly and examined every document carefully, it was unnecessary for the lower appellate Court to repeat the arguments of the District Munsiff. I find no reason for disturbing this concurrent finding of fact.

(3.) The second point is a combined question of fact and law. The question of fact is whether the plaintiff was a villager, and the second is, assuming that he was not, did the permission granted by the trial Court to the plaintiff to represent the villagers, prevent that Court and the appellate Courts from considering the question whether he was entitled to sue ? I find no reason for not accepting the concurrent finding of the Courts below that the appellant was not a villager. Both the Courts were also of the opinion on the evidence that only the villagers had a right to manage the Bhajana Madom.