RAMUNNI MADAYAN Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of two suits instituted by the karanavan and two junior members of a tarward known as Parassini Madappurakkal in Andoor Amsom, Chirakkal Taluk. The suits are O.S. No. 3/1951 and O.S. No. 7/1952 on the file of the District Court of North Malabar, the former suit being by the karanavan of the tarwad, and the latter being by the two junior members of the same tarwad. Both the suits were instituted for substantially the same relief and accordingly they were tried together and disposed of by a common judgment by which the learned District Judge dismissed both the suits. Against the dismissal of O. S. 3/1951, the plaintiff in that suit has preferred A. S. 588/1953, while the appeal A. S. 998/1953 is by the plaintiffs in O. S. 7/1952 against the dismissal of that suit. The dispute in both the suits relates to the question as to whether the Parassinikadavu Muthappan Sthanam in Andoor Amsom, Chirakkal Taluk, is a public temple as defined in the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act and in the Madras Temple Entry Authorisation Act, or whether it is only a private temple belonging exclusively to the tarwad of the plaintiffs in the two suits. An investigation into this matter was conducted as early as in the year 1926, as contemplated by S.80 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1925 (Act I of 1925) and the Religious Endowment Board constituted under that Act came to the conclusion that the Parassinikadavu Muthappan temple is a public temple to which the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act applies and a notification to that effect was published by the Board on 9-8-1926. Ext. B5 is copy of that notification and Ext. B6 is copy of the annexure to the same. After the passing of the Madras Temple Entry Authorisation Act, 1947, another notification as contemplated by S.6 of that Act Was published by the Madras Government declaring that the Parassinikadavu Muthappan temple is a public temple as defined in the Act. That notification is dated 21-3-1951 and Ext A2 is copy of the same. S.6 of the Temple Entry Authorisation Act runs as follows:

(2.) The other appeal A. S. 988 of 1953 is by the plaintiffs in O. S. 7/1952 who are two of the junior members of the Parassini Madappurakkal tarwad. They have also prayed for a declaration that the Parassinikadavu Muthappan Sthanam is a private temple belonging exclusively to their tarwad. The position taken up by them is that the earlier orders passed by the Madras Hindu Religious Endowment Board declaring this temple to be a public temple are not binding on their tarwad. Ext. B5 is the first of these orders, and it was passed on 9-8-1926 under S.80 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, Act 1 of 1925. The circumstances under which this order was passed have already been discussed in the earlier part of this judgment dealing with A. S. 588/1953 which is the appeal preferred by the karanavan of the same tarwad against the decree in his suit O. S. 3/1951. There it has been found that the order Ext. B5 was passed after notice to him and after bearing his objections and on a due consideration of the circumstances brought to light in the course of the inquiry as to the real nature of the temple in question. The contentions now raised by the junior members of the tarwad in support of the claim that the temple belongs exclusively to their tarwad, had all been put forward, by the karanavan at the inquiry conducted by the Hindu Religious Endowment Board. That he did so in his capacity as the karanavan and manager of his tarwad, is clear from the petition Ext. B1 before the Hindu Religious Endowment Board and also from the vakkalath Ext. B3 executed by him authorising his lawyer to appear before the Board and urge his claims in respect of the Parassinikadavu Muthappan Sthanam. As the karanavan of the tarwad, he was fully competent to represent his tarwad at that time and hence the order Ext. B5 is an order binding on his tarwad as a whole. All the same, it is pointed out an behalf of the plaintiffs, who are junior members in the tarwad, that there is nothing in S.80 of Act 1 of 1925 precluding them from challenging the validity of that order by instituting a regular suit in the civil Court. In support of this position it is pointed out that the period of one year prescribed for such a suit as per sub-section 2 of S.80, can govern only a suit instituted by a trustee affected by the decision of the Board. No doubt the sub-section refers only to a suit by a trustee. In the present case the trustee who was in management of the temple was the karanavan in management of the tarwad and the temple. Going by the wording employed in sub-section 2, it is possible to argue that the other members of the tarwad affected by the decision of the Board were not obliged to institute a suit to set aside the order Ext. B5 within a period of one year as prescribed by that sub-section. Even assuming this to be so, it cannot be said that the junior members can wait for any length of time and choose to institute a suit of that kind as and when they like. In the nature of the inquiry conducted by the Board and of the. contest made by the karanavan of the plaintiffs tarwad, it is difficult to believe that the members of the tarwad were not aware of the inquiry and the order then and there. All the same it is seen that the present suit was instituted only after a period of 25 years from the date of that order. It is also seen that some junior members of this tarwad, other than the present plaintiffs, had made an earlier attempt to get over the effect of the order Ext. B5. This attempt was made after Act I of 1925 was replaced by the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act (Act II of, 1927). S.84(1) of that Act provided that if any dispute arises as to whether an institution is a Math or Temple as defined in the Act or whether a temple is an expected temple, such disputes shall be decided by the Board. Some junior members of the plaintiffs tarwad took advantage of this provision and filed a petition before the Board seeking a declaration that the Parassinikadavu Muthappan Sthanam is a private temple belonging to their tarwad. Ext. A1 is the order dated 24-11-1949 by which the Board disposed of that petition. By this order, the Board declined to reconsider the matter for the reason that the prior order Ext. B5 dated 9-8-1926 had become final and conclusive. The scope and effect of an order like Ext. A1 passed under S.84(1) of Act II of 1927, are made clear by sub-s.(2) of the same section which is in the following terms:

(3.) In the result A. S.588/1953 and A. S.998/1953 are both dismissed with costs.