VENKATARAMAN Vs. L A THANGAPPA GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three appeals have been filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs in O. S. Nos. 55, 56 and 57 of 1961 on the file of learned Subordinate Judge of Erode. O. S. No. 55 of 1961, against which A. S. No. 11 of 1964 has been filed, was a suit to set aside the Order of the Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable endowments Board, Madras dated 18-3-1971 confirming the dismissal, by the deputy Commissioner of the Plaintiff's application under Section 57 (b) of the Tamil nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 for a declaration that the plaintiff was the hereditary trustee of the suit temple. The Plaintiff's case was that the Plaintiff's maternal grand-father one Krishna Iyer and his great grandfather one Krishna Iyer and his great grand-father one Narayana Iyer had been the hereditary poojaries and trustees of an ancient temple by name kaliyaghavaradaraja Perumal Temple at Thalayanallur, hamlet of Sivagiri Village, erode Taluk, Coimbatore District. The lands described in Schedule A to the plaint measuring 39-70 acres belonged to the said temple having been granted to it by the ancient Kings and Palayagars of Madurai. These grants have been recognised and confirmed by the then British Government in 1863 and an inam title deed 151 was also issued for the same. These lands have been in the possession and enjoyment of the said Krishna Iyer and his predecessors-in-title. One Subba Iyer, the only son of Krishna Iyer, executed in favour of the Plaintiff a deed of Settlement dated 30-5-1944, which has been marked at Ex. A. 1 in the suit, in and by which he transferred all his rights in and over the temple and the lands belonging to it, and the plaintiff alone has been performing the duties of the trustee and poojari for the last 17 years. While so, at the instigation of the enemies of the plaintiff, on the assumption that by reason of the irrigation facilities afforded by the lower Bhavani Project Canal the value of the lands and the income thereon have arisen, the Area Committee initiated proceedings for appointment on non-hereditary trustees and by its resolution dated 24-7-1959 appointed defendants 1 to 3 as non-hereditary trustees of the temple. The plaintiff filed an application under Sec. 57 (b) of Madras Act 19 of 1951 for a declaration that he was the hereditary trustee of the said temple. This application was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner by his Order dated 23-9-1960. On appeal by the plaintiff the Commissioner confirmed the Order of dismissal of the Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 18-3-1961. The plaintiff has filed O. S. No. 55 of 1961 to set aside this order of the Commissioner dated 18-3-1961.

(2.) TWO separate written statements were filed, one by the 1st defendant, and the other by the 4th defendant in the suit, the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and charitable Endowments. The 1st defendant contended that the plaintiff's predecessors-in-title were not the hereditary trustees of the suit temple, that the villagers had control over the management of the suit temple, that the hereditary poojariship and trusteeship could not be held by one and the same person, that in any case the plaintiff was not a heir-at-law of Subba Iyer and that the settlement ex. A. 1 executed by Subba Iyer was not valid in law and did not confer any right on the plaintiff.

(3.) THE 4th defendant, the Commissioner for the Hindu Religious and Charitable endowments, in his written statement admitted that the plaintiff and his immediate ancestors had been performing pooja in the suit temple but contended that, while officiating as Poojaries, they also appeared to have been looking after the secular affairs of the temple generally and doing all the work connected with it, which was normally done by the trustee but stated that, that it was the practice in the last century for the subordinate officers like archakas, pericharakas and service holders to function as de facto managers in addition to the performance of their subordinate duties, that the subordinate officers always acted under the control and supervision of the Hindu worshipping public of the locality, that the settlement deed, even if true, was not valid in law and the office of trustee of a public temple or trust was inalienable in law and therefore Ex. A-1 was void. He further stated that the plaintiff was not a heir to Subba Iyer and on that ground also Ex. A. 1 was invalid, that the predecessors of the plaintiff have wrongfully alienated a portion of the inam lands endowed to the temple and that they were guilty of misfeasance and therefore the plaintiff could not be entrusted with the right of management of the temple and its endowments. It was also contended that in 1949, the Area Committee appointed trustees and that was not challenged by the plaintiff and that therefore the plaintiff had lost the right, if any, and that the suit was barred by limitation. It was also contended that the poojariship and trusteeship could not in law be combined in one and the same person and that therefore the plaintiff could not claim to be the hereditary trustee of the suit temple. xx xx xx xx xx xx xx