T K PATTABHIRAM Vs. C S RAMAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute between the parties has a long history. On 25. 1.1971, the petitioner and two others formed a Trust called the Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Vidya Mandir Trust (VMT in short) which was a charitable trust and inspired by the visit of His Holiness Shri Jeyandra Saraswathi Swamigal, the present head of Kanchi Kama Koti Peedam (HH in short) to Coimbatore. THE properties of the Trust as per the trust deed were movables beings subscriptions, donations, gifts etc. THE three trustees were to hold office for life. THE vacancy in the office of the Trust has to be filled up by nomination in consultation with HH obtained in his personal capacity. THE petitioner was the first managing trustee. For the purpose of this civil revision petitioner were concerned with another trust called Shree Kanchi Kamakoti Mandir Trust (MT in short). This trust deed was executed on 19.3.1979, the first trustees were the same as the trustees of the VMT. THE main object of MT was to provide a temple for public worship and to instal idols for public worship. THE period of office of trustees was give years at the end of which it was to stand terminated. THE retiring trustees can be reappointed for a further time subject to the consent of HH. THE office of appointment and reappointment was at the pleasure of HH. Any vacancy in the office of the Trust has to filled up by nomination by the Board of Trustees in consultation with HH. THE first Managing Trustee was the petitioner. Decisions by the Board of Trustees had to be unanimous and in case of difference of opinion it has to be referred to HH whose decision would be final. THE property which was subject matter of the Trust was comprised in T.S.Nos.360, 361, 362, 364, Tiruvengadam Swami Road, Coimbatore, measuring 2,196 sq.ft. and comprised of shrines of Vinayagar, Kamatchi Amman, Navagraham, Ashtalakshmi and Perumal. THE two Trust Deeds referred to above were marked as Exs.B-6 and A-1 respectively. THE former is a registered Trust Deed and the latter is not.

(2.) THE petitioner as stated above was appointed as the Managing Trustee for life in respect of VMT and out of the other two trustees one is dead and the other had migrated from Coimbatore and therefore, in effect he alone continued. there were certain proceedings in respect of the temple, sometime in 1993 the petitioner handed over possession of the temple to HH. THE rival parties have their own version regarding the circumstances under which this was done. Before the authorities constituted under theH.R. & C.E. Act, O.A.No.45 of 1990 and O.A.No.12 of 1986 which are suo motu proceedings under Sec.63 (f) and (g) of the Act and petition under Sec.63(a) and (b) of the Act respectively. THE petitioner had along with the two others filed O.A.No.12 of 1986 claiming that they were hereditary trustees and this was dismissed and as regards O.A.No.45 of 1990 which is a suo motu proceeding, it was decided and declared that the Kamatchi Amman Temple is the public religious institution. This order was passed on 11.8.1998. THE Joint Commissioner has considered in detail the history of the two trusts and held that the MT trust and the secular activities were dealt with by the VMT trust. He also came to the conclusion that a perusal of Ex.A1, the MT trust deed lays down clear-cut provisions for filling up vacancies in consultation with HH and therefore, he held that the institution having been found to be a public religious institution, appointment of trustees should be made in terms of Ex.A-1, trust deed and in consonance with the statutory rules. THEse two proceedings themselves were disposed of pursuant to the interim order made by this Court in W.P.No.13 of 1990 filed by the petitioner herein challenging the order appointing a fit person. Originally the petitioner had not impleaded the"respondents 1 to 5 in the writ proceedings but thereafter they were impleaded. Against the order in O.A.No.12 of 1986 and O.A.No.45 of 1990, an appeal petition was filed under Sec.69(1) of the Act. THE Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., on a consideration of all the issues involved in the matter, came to the conclusion that there is no justification on the part of the petitioner to continue evading production of accounts and that the petitioner was directed to cooperate with the authorities of the H.R. & C.E. Department. THE appeal was therefore, dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the writ petition mentioned above was filed O.A.No.8 of 1999 before the Joint Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. under amended Sec.64(1) of the Act for settling a scheme of administration with a specific provision for appointment of non-hereditary trustees. This application was filed by the respondents as "worshippers" of the temple and s "persons interested" and also on the ground that there was no legally constituted trustee functioning in the temple at present which provided room for mismanagement and misappropriation in the temple. THE petitioner also filed O.S.No.943 of 1999, a statutory suit under Sec.70(1) of the Act against the dismissal of the A.P.No.28 of 1998 and for declaration that VMT is not a religious institution and that the petitioner was entitled to hold office as hereditary trustee as VMT as well as the Kamatchi Amman Temple and for permanent injunction. This suit is pending and so is the O.A. filed by the respondents 1 to 5.

(3.) THE heart sinks when we find that even temples do not escape the greed of man. THE grievance of the petitioner has been well answered by the lower appellate Court, who has considered the questions from all the relevant points of view namely the contradiction in the petitioner's stand as regards the existence of the MT, the contradictory stand taken by the petitioner with regard to the authority to HH with regard to the management of Temple and appointment of trustees; the claim made by the petitioner asserting the private right in respect of the Temple, the effect of the introduction of the petitioner's own family members as trustees and also of course the question of balance of convenience with regard to grant of injunction. THEre can be no gainsaying the fact that appointment of a receiver is one of the harshest remedies which the Law provides. However, unless the facts of the matter show at least prima facie some emergent or eminent danger the Court will not normally deprive a person in de facto possession and vest the property in the hands and another. THE trial Court had held that the petitioner was in de facto possession of the Temple as a Trustee. A perusal of Exs.A-1 and B-6 shows that while Ex.B-6 is secular, Ex.A-1 is for a religious performance and to establish a public temple and install idols for public version. As submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent we are not really concerned with VMT since a perusal of the trust deed. Ex.B-6 shows that the Trust does not concern deeds with the temple therefore, we are only concerned with the MT which is Ex.A-1. THE clause 4 of the trust deed reads as follows: "THE administration and management of the Trust shall vest in the hands of the Trustees whose number shall not exceed five and shall at no time to less than three. THE first Trustees shall be (1) Sri A.S.Bhanu Panth, (2) Sri Ramji Arjun, and (3) Sri T.K.Pattabhiraman. Each of the above mentioned trustees 1 to 3 shall hold offices for a period of five from the date of this deed and their offices shall stand terminated on the date of expiry of the term mentioned above. THE retiring trustees shall be subject to re-appointment for a further period of five years subject to the consent of His Holiness Sri Sankaracharya Swamigal of Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Mutt. THE Trustees shall hold the office of appointment and re-appointment at the pleasure of His Holiness Sri Sankaracharya Swamigal of Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Mutt."