TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD Vs. S. NEELACANTAN MOOTHATHU AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by the former State of Travancore, represented by the Diwan, for recovery of a certain amount alleged to be due to the Subramania Swami Temple at Cheriyanad, the Uraima right of which is stated to have been with the Oomanpilli Mana at Kadalasseri Desom in the former State of Cochin. The management of this Devaswom was assumed by the Travancore State by virtue of the powers conferred by the Hindu Religious Endowments Act (Act III of 1079 of Travancore) and hence the State figured as a plaintiff in this case.

(2.) ACCORDING to the plaint allegations the members of the 1st defendant's Illom were holding the office of 'Kaisthani' and treasurer for a long time past, and the 1st defendant who was the karnavan of this Illom was the last member to hold this office. Because he was found to be guilty of having misappropriated Devaswom funds and of having committed other acts pre -Judicial to the interests of the Devaswom, he was removed from the office in the year 1111. At the time of such removal, his liability was settled and the amount due from him to the Devaswom was ascertained to be 272 paras 6 9/16 edangalies of paddy and Rs. 506 chs. 9 cash 11. In the Devaswom accounts Exts. A and B, the 1st defendant put his signatures on 28 -6 -1114 and 29 -6 -1114 acknowledging his liability for the aforesaid amounts. It is stated that the 1st defendant's Illom had no source of income other than the dues from the plaint Devaswom and that the amounts misappropriated from the Devaswom were utilised by him for the benefit of his Illom. On the basis of such an allegation the 1st defendants Illom is also sought to be made liable for the plaint claim, and accordingly the other members of the Illom were impleaded as defendants 2 onwards.Defendants 1 and 2 resisted the suit by filing separate written statements. Both of them have admitted that the 1st defendant had been functioning as the Kaisthani and treasurer of the Devaswom even though they maintained that he was not holding such offices not under the Oommenpilli Mana, but by virtue of the right vested in the 1st defendants Illom itself. According to the 1st defendant, he volunteered to surrender these offices by executing a release deed dated 23 -6 -1111 in favour of the Oommenpilli Mana represented by the 1st plaintiff in the suit. He has contended that nothing was due to the Devaswom from him at that time and the entries in the Devaswom accounts, Exts. A and B, have been subsequently fabricated. It also denied having utilised any portion of the income of the Devaswom properties for the benefit of his Illom and contended that in any view of the case his Illom cannot be made liable for the plaint claim.

(3.) ON a consideration of the evidence in the case the lower Court came to the conclusion that the defendant's Illom cannot be made liable for the plaint claim. Accordingly the Illom was exonerated from liability for the claim and a decree was passed against the 1st defendant alone. He has not preferred any appeal against that decree and hence it has become final, so far as he is concerned. The present appeal was preferred by the 2nd plaintiff and it is directed against the decree exonerating the 1st defendant's Illom from liability for the plaint claim. The appeal is being continued by the Travancore Devaswom Board in which the management of the plaint Devaswom has since become vested by virtue of Act 15 of 1950.