RAJU Vs. ADVOCATE GENERAL H C BUILDINGS MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE pettioners pray for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ under Art. 226 of the constitution to quash teorder of the learned Advocate General of Madras dated 6-1-1961 in sanction Appln No. 11 of 1960, preferred before him for the necessary consent for the institution of a suit under S. 92 C. P. C.

(2.) THE petitioners are residents in the village of Sirunaickanpetti Dngual tauk, mathurai Dt. and they are Roman Catholic Christians by religion. The bulk of the population of the village of Sirunaickenpatti consists of Roman Catholic Christians. There is a Church in the village, St. Anthony Church and there is also another church, the Church of S. Thomas situated on the top f ahillock near the village. The catholic Christians of the village appear to have raised funds for levying contribations and subscriptions from all the Catholic and purchased statues, pictures, ornaments, and carriage for carrying corpses to the burial ground and other articles necessary and useful for the Christian population residing in the locality. Respondents 2 to 4 in this petition are stated to be funtioning as trustees managing the communal properties. The articles referred to above were entrusted to them for safe custody; they were bound to celebrate the festivals connected with the churches, and afford use of the articles to the members of the christian public as and when required. These respondents also made collections from their co-religionists in the village and incurred the necessary expensives for the upkeep and maintenance of the properties and for the conduct of the religious festivals. The second respondent is alleed to be "nattamai" or the communal head, and the third respondent is alleged to be the "maniam" possibly assisting the Nattamai. The 4th respondent is the accountant employed by the second and the third respondents to keep the accounts of the trust. The petitioners allege that the 4th respondent has been lending out the surplus amounts of the trust available with him after meeting all charges and expenses to several Christian residents of the village, taking bonds and documents in his own name for and behalf of the community. This fund is described and wn as St. Sebastiar Koil common fund. It is now aparent that there is a faction in the village amongst the members of the Roman Catholic Christian community. The petitioners charge respondents 2 to 4 with having commited gross breach of trust in regard to the moneys belonging to the trustin having retained the surplus amount in their own hands without investement for the last two years and in having to refuse to render true and proper accounts to the other members of the community. It is also alleged that respondents 2 ans 4 failed in their duty to call for a meeting of the community and to consult them in matters relating to the common affairs of the community. The ill-feeling between the petitioners' group and the respondents' group gradually developed and this led to respondents 2 to 4 denying the petitioners their un doubted privileges of participating in the public function in the church and refusing them to use of the furenal car to take corpses to the burial ground. The petitioner filed a suit in a representative caoacity under O. 1 Rule 8 C. P. C. against respondents 2 to 4 in the O. S No. 226 of 1959 on the file of the District Munsif's court of Dindigul for a declaration that the funeral car under the management of respondents 2 to 4 belongs to the Roman Catholic community of srinaickenpatti and that all the members of the community are entitled to make use of it and that respondent 2 to4 should make the car available for the use of the community as such. This suit was decreed by consent of parties on 1-4-1960.

(3.) RESPONDENTS 2 to 4 are firmly entreched in their position as trustees in respect of the management of the Church and the communal properties. They have also trust funds in their hands, if the allegation of the petitioners is true, in respect of which as trustees they were certainly liable not merely to keep regular accounts but also to render accounts to the beneficiaries of the trust when called upon to do so. The petitioners therefore contemplated the filing of a suit against respondent 2 to 4 and framed a plaint praying for the following reliefs: