STATE OF MADRAS Vs. A V RATHNASABAPATHY GURUKKAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SRI Balasubramaniaswamy temple is situate at Andavarkuppam village, Ponneri Taluk Chengalpattu district. One Tirupurasundari Ammal was declared to be the hereditary trustee of the said temple as per the proceedings in A.S. No. 230 of 1890 on the file of District Court, Chengalpattu. The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board attempted to declare the temple as non-excepted one and purported to issue orders to the effect in or about 1934. The said Thirupurasundari Ammal filed O.P. No. 22 of 1934 on the file of District Court, Chengalpattu for a declaration that the trusteeship of the said temple was hereditary for her family and in those proceedings, it was held that she was the hereditary trustee of the suit temple and the Religious Endowments Board had no right to reopen the question whether the temple is a non excepted temple.

(2.) THE said Thirupurasundari Ammal died on 7.2.1951, leaving behind her, five of her grandsons through her only daughter, Chenchammal. THE names of the said grandsons are Shanmugha Gurukkal, Amruthamani Gurukkal, Arumugha Gurukkal, Rama Gurukkal and Rathnasabapathi Gurukkal. Of them, Amruthamani Gurukkal was ex communicated and Arumugha Gurukkal and Rama Gurukkal were dead. It appears that during her lifetime, Thirupurasundari Ammal did not exercise her hereditary trusteeship for sometime and none of her grandsons also appearing to be interested, the trusteeship of the said temple devolved on the shoulders of some person appointed to manage the temple by the Endowment Board.

(3.) DEFENDANTS 1 to 3 resisted the suit claim, by the projection of manifold objections that Thirupurasundari Ammal was not at all declared to be the hereditary trustee of the said temple and consequently, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of declaration that he is the only legal hie to succeed to the office of the hereditary trusteeship. The suit, not having been filed within time schedule, as provided for under the various provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (f or short ?the Act?) is barred by limitation. Besides, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to afford the relief prayed for. Top of all, the so called hereditary trusteeship rights had once and for all be abandoned.