COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS Vs. V. KRISHNASWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras, the first defendant in O.S. 10 of 1965 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul, is the appellant. The controversy in the suit instituted by the plaintiff related to the office of hereditary trustee of Sri Kaliamman temple situate in Andipatti village in Periakulam taluk.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff was that the Sri Kaliamman temple which was an ancient institution was always being managed by a hereditary trustee and that it was the family of the plaintiff which was managing the temple and its affairs as hereditary trustee for a long number of years. According to the plaintiff his great -grandfather was originally managing the temple as hereditary trustee and after him the plaintiff's grandfather Perumal Naicker was in management and after his grandfather's time the plaintiffs father Velappa Naicker was managing the affairs of the temple as hereditary trustee for about 40 years. It was the further case of the plaintiff that after his father's death he took over the management of the temple as hereditary trustee and has been in uninterrupted management of the same for very many years. In the year 1939, the temple was declared to be an excepted temple by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board and while deciding the character of the temple the Board had also determined the nature of the office of the trustee and had accepted the holding of the office of trustee by the plaintiff as one done in the exercise of his vested right as hereditary trustee. According to the plaintiff when this was the settled state of affairs the Area Committee of Madurai, without any notice or intimation to him, appointed the second defendant in the suit as a non -hereditary trustee and this fact came to be known to the plaintiff only when the second defendant took steps through the Area Committee to obtain possession of the temple and the temple properties from the plaintiff. At once the plaintiff sought the intervention of the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board, Madurai and prayed that no certificate for possession of the temple and its properties should be granted in favour of the second defendant. The Deputy Commissioner however disregarded the plea of the plaintiff and issued a certificate in favour of the second defendant on 21 -10 -1963. This led to the plaintiff films an application O. A. 59 of 1960 before the Deputy Commissioner for assailing the appointment of the second defendant as a non -hereditary trustee by the Area Committee when the plaintiff was admittedly in possession of the temple and its properties in the capacity of hereditary trustee and when such rights had already been recognised as early as 1939. On the Deputy Commissioner refusing to intercede in the matter and dismissing the application of the plaintiff he preferred an appeal to the Commissioner but the appeal also did not meet with success. It was thereafter the plaintiff came forward with the suit O.S. 10 of 1965 and prayed for a declaration that he was the hereditary trustee of Sri Kaliamman temple and for having the order of the Commissioner dated 28 -10 -1964 in A. S. 6 of 1964 set aside.

(3.) IN a separate written statement the second defendant also opposed the claim of the plaintiff to be entitled to act as the hereditary trustee of the temple. The second defendant averred that the management of the temple had always been vested in the representatives of the three communities of Pillaimars, Chettiars and Naickers, that the periathanakarars of each of the communities had always been managing the affairs of the temple jointly with each other and that therefore the claim of the plaintiff that he and his fore -fathers had been in exclusive management of the temple as hereditary trustees was not a genuine claim. The second defendant also contended that the prior action of the Board in having recognised the temple as an excepted one had nothing to do with the question as to whether the office of trustee attached to the temple was a hereditary or non -hereditary one and that therefore the plaintiff was not entitled to sustain his claim for the hereditary trusteeship of the temple on the earlier decision of the Board accepting the temple to be an excepted institution.