THE STATE OF MADRAS, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS AND ANR. Vs. SAMBANDAMURTHI MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants are the appellants from a decree setting aside the order of the first defendant, who is the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras, dated 10th May, 1960 by which he confirmed the order of the second defendant, the Deputy Commissioner in the same department holding that the trusteeship of the Kumaran Koil in Manjakollai village is not hereditary. The respondent was elected as a trustee by the Senguntha Mudaliar of Manjakollai village at a meeting held on 27th June, 1957. According to him, the temple was founded two hundred years ago by the members of his community and since then the management of the temple and its affairs has continuously been in the Senguntha Mudaliar community of Manjakollai, and that no person other than one elected as trustee by the community had at any time any right of control and management of the temple and its properties. In 1926, the temple was declared as an excepted temple under the provisions of Madras Act I of 1925. The trusteeship of the temple is, therefore, as the respondent would maintain, hereditary. The appellants, however, took a different view of the matter and proceeded on the basis that, Kumaran Koil is not one whose trusteeship is hereditary. On an application for the purpose made by the respondent, the second defendant, in the first instance, held that the trusteeship of the institution was not hereditary, and an appeal by the respondent to the Commissioner failed, his order being dated 10th May, 1960. He instituted the suit on 9th January, 1961.

(2.) IN the Court below, two questions were raised: (i) whether the respondent is a hereditary trustee as claimed by him; and (ii) whether the suit was within time. The Court below answered both the questions in favour of the respondent and decreed the suit.

(3.) ON the first point argued before us as to the nature of the trusteeship of the suit institution, the Court below, on the evidence before it, found that over a long period of years the trustee to the institution was elected by and from the Senguntha Mudaliars of Manjakollai and that the respondent was such a representative chosen by the Manjakollai Senguntha Mudaliars in pursuance of the long usage. It was, therefore, of the view that the trusteeship was hereditary within the meaning of Section 6(9) of Madras Act XIX of 1951. This Act has since been substituted by Madras Act XXII of 1959 but the definition of hereditary trustee is identical in both the Acts. Section 6(9) is as follows: