B K C MURUGA KONAR Vs. V SETHAKONE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by Special Leave against a judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court delivered on February 7, 1972.

(2.) Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 along with one other person filed a representative suit on behalf of themselves and other members of the Thousand-Yadhava Community residing in Ramayanacharadi Street and the other adjoining lanes in North Masi Street, Madurai Town and adjoining villages against original appellant No. 1 herein, for an order directing him to render true and proper accounts of the management of the properties of the Thousand-Yadhava Community including the Sri Ramasami Sri Navaneethakrishnasami Devasthanam Temples and their properties and to pay to the plaintiffs the amount ascertained as payable on such rendition of accounts with interest and other reliefs. Original appellant No. 1 herein was the trustee of the said temples. He died during the pendency of the appeal before us and his two sons have been joined as appellants Nos. 1(i) to 1(ii) in this appeal.

(3.) We propose to refer to the parties by their descriptions in the suit for the sake of convenience. Very briefly stated, according to the plaintiffs, the said temples were private religious trusts and the defendant had committed several acts of mismanagement in respect of the properties of the said trusts. The defendant denied these allegations. The inter alia, contended that the suit as framed was not maintainable in law, in view of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). The trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by the provisions of the said Act. The Trial Court held that the said temples were not private temples belonging to the aforesaid community, namely, Thousand-Yadhava Community. The trial Court took the view that the Thousand-Yadhava Community must be regarded as a section of the Hindu Community and in that case both the temples would be covered by the provisions of S. 6(20) of the said Act. Sub-section (20) of S.6 defines the meaning of the word 'temple' for the purpose of the said Act and, very briefly stated, lays down that it is a place used as a place of public religious worship and dedicated to or for the benefit of the Hindu Community or any section thereof, as a place of public religious worship. The trial Court took the view that although this question could be decided primarily only by the Endowment Board and Civil Court has no jurisdiction to go into it, it could go into that question incidentally as was done by the trial Court. As a consequence of this conclusion, the trial Court held that the suit was barred by the provisions of the said Act and was not maintainable at law. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal against this decision to the Madras High Court. A Division Bench of the Madras High Court after examining the provisions of the said Act held that the trial Court was not right in dismissing the suit in toto even with regard to the relief of accounting. The High Court held that defendant No. 1 (original appellant before us) admitted that he was elected in 1949 as the trustee of the said temples at a meeting of the members of the community. The said Act does. not contain any provision for rendition of accounts. A party seeking relief of accounting cannot approach the Deputy Commissioner or any other authority under the said Act and hence, the Civil Court is not barred either expressly or by necessary implication from entertaining a suit in so far as it was for the relief of accounting. Following upon this reasoning, the court allowed the appeal and passed a preliminary decree against defendant No. 1 for rendition of accounts while dismissing the suit in all other respects.