LAWS(MAD)-1980-6-5

EXECUTIVE OFFICER SREE ARTHANAREESWARAR DEVASTHANAM TIRUCHENGODE SALEM DISTRICT Vs. S N BALASUBRAMANIA GURUKKAL DIED

Decided On June 18, 1980
THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SREE ARTHANAREESWARAR DEVASTHANAM, TIRUCHENGODE, SALEM DISTRICT Appellant
V/S
S. N. BALASUBRAMANIA GURUKKAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant, THE Executive Officer, Sri Arthanareeswarar and Kailasanathar Devasthanams, Tiruchengode, is the appellant before me. THE second appeal arises out of O.S. No. 245 of 1971 in which the respondents/plaintiffs, who are the hereditary Archakas and Sthanikas of the temples above named and who are performing the pooja according to turns, filed a representative suit praying for rendition of accounts of the collections made by the defendant by the issue of tickets for various items in the temples mentioned in the plaint. THEre was also a prayer for payment of half share in the collections as well as half share in the Archanai and Deeparathanai collections from January, 1971.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiffs is that the emoluments of the Archakas and Sthanikas consist of the fee paid by the worshippers for performing (1) Archanais, (2) Deeparathanais, (3) Kattalai and (4) other gifts given at the time of worship. THEy are not separately paid any remuneration from the temple funds and so the Executive Officer in his proceedings Roc. No. 90/61-8, dated 13th November, 1951, fixed the fees for Archanais, Deeparathanais and Kattalais and determined the share of the Archakas and Sthanikas in those collections. This necessitated the plaintiffs to file O.S. No. 33 of 1956 before the Sub-Court, Salem in a representative capacity and the same was decreed on 30th November, 1957. Though there was a prayer for injunction, that prayer was not granted by the Court. THE amount due till 14th November, 1957. was ascertained and paid to the plaintiffs and others. THE fees for five items of service was fixed in those proceedings and the shares of the Archakas were also mentioned. THE then Executive Officer put up a memo on the notice board on 20th September, 1952, staring that the shares of Archakas in the Archanai and Deeparathanai tickets will be paid on Mondays and Fridays and the day following each New Moon Day. THE said system was in vogue only for a few years, but thereafter it was abandoned. From 1967 onwards, various kinds of tickets have been issued by the Executive Officer, for instance, tickets for Kanikkai, tickets for Palavagai receipts, tickets for marriage in the temples and tickets for Abishekam, Santhihomam and Navagraha Santhi Kanikkai, etc., and in accordance with those tickets the plaintiffs and other Archakas were performing services to the worshippers. THE introduction of the ticket system was never informed to the plaintiffs and, therefore, they had no knowledge, whatever about the resolution passed by the Board of Trustees. Under section 57 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, for introducing ticket system, they should be given an opportunity and their representations should have been heard. But that was not done. In the fee fixed at Rs. 5-50 for Abishekam, the Archakas" share was determined at Rs. 4-50 in the proceedings dated 13th November, 1951, mentioned above. But now tickets are issued for Abishekam at Rs. 2 and the plaintiffs are obliged to lose their shares. THEre cannot be any reduction without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs. THEy stand to be affected by the same. However, the defendant is continuing in spite of that being objected to. THE defendant has not paid the shares of the plaintiffs for Archanais and Deeparathanai tickets from January, 1971 in spite of repeated requests. THE amount due to the plaintiffs is estimated at Rs. 5,100 being their shares in the Archanai and Deeparathanai tickets. On 15th March, 1971, by a notice, Exhibit A-4, a demand was made on the defendant. But that had not been complied with. In fact, not even a reply was sent and hence the necessity for the suit.

(3.) A reply statement was also filed by the plaintiffs stating that the Archakas were not paid their shares regularly by the Executive Officers. It was not true that the Archakas were collecting fees for Abishekam from the worshippers. The worshippers were not paying anything to the Archakas after the introduction of the ticket system.