RAMASWAMI AMBALAM Vs. MADRAS HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed by one Rama -swami Ambalam, the first plaintiff in O.S. No. 18 of 1950, on the file of the District Judge of Ramanathapuram, to withdraw that suit to the file of this Court under Article 228 of the Constitution of India, and either dispose of the suit here itself or determine the question of law covered by the additional issue framed in the suit by the District Judge, Mr. p. N. Ramaswami, as he then was, on 4th April 1951 in LA. No. 86 of 1951, an application for amendment of the plaint filed by the plaintiffs, adding a contention that the scheme framed by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras (1st defendant), under Section 57 of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act, regarding the suit temple (Sri Koppudanayagi Amman temple of Karaikudi, with an income of thirty thousand rupees a year), under the orders of the Federal Court in App. Suit No. 7 of 1948, was null and void as the entire Hindu Religious Endowments Act, and especially Section 57 thereof, was 'ultra vires' of the powers of the Legislature, as it offended Articles 15 and 26 and other provisions of the Constitution of India, regarding Fundamental Rights, by discrimination against Hindus alone by subjecting their endowments alone to regulation and control by Government officers and Corporations, leaving Muslims, Christian, Parsi, Jewish and other endowments unaffected, and by interfering with the freedom of the Hindus to manage their own religious institutions in their own way without interference by politicians and legislators and officials not so well acquainted with Hindu beliefs and usages.

(2.) THIS petition is vigorously opposed by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board and two out of the three trustees, representing the two warring groups of Nagarathars and Natters, on various grounds, like the scheme not haying been framed under Section 57 of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act but only under the orders of the Federal Court in Appellate Suit No. 7 of 1948; Article 228 not applying, as there is no substantial question of law involved, as contemplated by it; such question, even if it is involved, not being necessary to be decided for disposing of this suit; the motive of the plaintiffs being only mercenary, and not religious or pious; the appellate side having no jurisdiction to entertain the petition, as it involves the trial of a suit here and can be filed only on the original side; and the need to set aside the direction of Satyanarayana Rao and Raghava Rao, JJ., regarding the non -functioning of the Board of Trustees till the suit is disposed of, in then order dated the 12th February 1951, as the basis of that order was the consent of the parties' in the belief that the orders of the learned Judges to the District Judge, Ramanathapuram, to dispose of the suit before the summer recess, would be carried out and not frustrated by the selfish and mischievous and dilatory tactics of the plaintiffs, in case Article 228 is held to be applicable and the suit is withdrawn to this Court.

(3.) AN injunction petition (LA. No. 151 of 1950) was filed by the plaintiffs for restraining the three trustees from taking charge under the scheme and for restraining the old Receiver from handing over charge to the executive officer appointed under the scheme. The learned District Judge dismissed this petition on 6th January 1951 and dissolved the interim injunction he had granted. Eventually, on the 12th February 1951, in L.P.A. No. 7 of 1951 and C.M.A. No. 21 of 1951, Satyanarayana Rao and Raghava Rao, JJ., on the consent of parties, allowed the executive officer appointed under the scheme to function as a Receiver of Court, subject to the directions of the District Court, and directed the Board of Trustees, 'in a later paragraph', not to function till the disposal of the suit, and directed the District Judge, Ramanathapuram, to dispose of the suit before the summer recess.