(1.) The defendant in O.S. No.4298 of 1976 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras is the appellant herein.
(2.) The case of the plaintiff can be set out in a nutshell as under:- The plaintiff is the 44th Madathipathi of Sri Ahobila Mutt Sri Vaishnavite Mutt established from ancient times from the time of its founder, Sri Adiwan Satagopa Yatindra Maha Desukan about six centuries ago. It has been from that time continuing to function as Sri Vaishnavite Mutt for the spread of Sri Vaishnavism and for religious ministrations to the devotees called the disciples of the Mutt. The heads of the Mutt have all been persons who renounced worldly and family life and entrusted as Madathipathis of the Mutt. The 44th Madathipathi succeeded on the death of the 43rd Madathipathi on 24.11.1957. The 44th Madathipathi acted following the traditions set up by the previous heads of the Mutt and has been administering the affairs of the Mutt both its religious aspect and in its secular aspect with great sincerity and devotion. While so, on 20.1.1965, the defendant issued a notice to the plaintiff calling upon him to show cause as to why a scheme should not be framed for the better administration of the Mutt and its specific endowments attached thereto with a provision to constitute an Advisory Committee to be in charge of the secular affairs of the Mutt under Section 65 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred as "the Act"). In the said notice, it was mentioned that the Madathipathi sold immovable properties owned by the Mutt without obtaining previous sanction of the Commissioner under Section 34 of the Act and that too, for prices lower than the market rates to the persons interested. The notice set out certain instances in that regard. In the said notice, it was also mentioned that the funds of the Mutt have been lent to the servants of the Mutt against the investment rules. The plaintiff submitted his explanation and made representation against the framing of a scheme explaining how the contents of the notice are contrary to truth. By an order dated 11.3.1976, the Commissioner held that a draft scheme will be issued with a provision to have an Advisory Committee consisting of five members selected by the Commissioner from the Vadagalai Sri Vaishnavite Sect Sishyas of the Ahobila Mutt of whom two will be the practising Advocates and that the period of office as Advisors will be three years from the date of appointment and the mode of selection by the Commissioner will be provided in the scheme. Aggrieved by the said proceedings of the defendant for framing a scheme, the plaintiff instituted the present suit under Section 70 of the Act for setting aside the said order of the Commissioner. It is contended that framing of a scheme by the Commissioner under Section 65 of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the present case is without jurisdiction and vitiated by errors of law apparent on the face of the proceedings. According to the plaintiff, there are also no proper materials to sustain the order of the Commissioner in relation to his finding as to the proof of various grounds levelled against the plaintiff for framing of a scheme and assuming without admitting for the purpose of arguments that even if one or some of the grounds are held to be proved, still it did not justify the framing of a scheme. According to the plaintiff, the Mutt in question was originally exempted under the Act of 1927 and later on, it was cancelled only to the extent of the applicability of Sections 69 and 70 of the Act relating to payment of contribution. In 1949, a notification came to be issued which cancelled the entire order of exemption. That order was challenged in a suit in C.S.No.681 of 1948 on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Madras. However, the same was dismissed. An appeal was filed as against the said judgment and that being so, the rights and liabilities has to be determined only with reference to the said appellate judgment. The appellate judgment was one passed on compromise and the compromise decree did not accept the validity of the cancellation of the notification granting exemption. A reading of the compromise decree would show that what was agreed in the appeal was only the applicability of the Act relating to payment of contribution and audit fees. In those circumstances, it is to be mentioned that the earlier notification exempting the provisions of the Act to the Mutt in question is still in force and the defendant has no jurisdiction to extent the provisions of the Act to the Ahobila Mutt. Thus, the defendant is precluded by estoppel, equitable, legal and promissory, from now enforcing any of the provisions of the Endowments Act including the provisions of Section 65 of the Act relating to the framing of a scheme. Therefore, the entire proceedings initiated by the defendant for framing of a scheme are invalid and null and void. Even assuming that the defendant had jurisdiction, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the proceedings initiated to frame a scheme is contrary to law and unsustainable on facts and is therefore liable to be set aside. The defendant examined only three witnesses of whom C.W-1 was not a member of the staff of the Endowments Department and other two are former Inspectors of the defendant. None of the said witnesses have spoken from personal knowledge with regard to the charges levelled against the plaintiff. None of the documents were marked as exhibits in the enquiry, but were given only Exhibit numbers in the Department file itself. In fact, the documents were not put to the plaintiff's representative who attended the hearing. In those circumstances, the entire proceedings are violative of the principles of natural justice and are, therefore, liable to be set aside. As far as ground No.1 is concerned, the plaintiff has pointed out that the lands were sold at a time when the Land Ceiling Act was passed. The plaintiff wanted to safeguard the property of the Mutt by converting it into cash and investing the same. In fact, the properties were sold only for a reasonable price and the defendant failed to see that the sales effected were made only in the interest of the Mutt, as those lands which were sold were not yielding good income. That apart, in view of the application of the Cultivating Tenants and Public Trust Act, the Mutt was not realising the necessary income or even normal income, after selling those lands, the Mutt invested the sale proceeds in proper securities as fully explained in the proceedings before the Commissioner. In fact, the provisions of the Act do not provide for any consequence of such sale without sanction in so far as the trustee is concerned, except for annulling the transaction. So far as ground No.2 that the lands were sold for a price lower than the market price is concerned, the authorities have acted on the reports of the Revenue Officials and they are nothing but opinion expressed by those staff of the Department. In fact, the Revenue Officials were not subjected to any cross-examination. The properties in fact, were sold for a proper price after due enquiry and for the then prevailing price. The ground No.4 refers to purchase of property by the Mutt. In fact, that was done in the interest of the Mutt. In what way the purchase is against the interest of the Mutt has not been explained. In so far as ground No.6 is concerned, namely, the investments on promissory notes, it has to be pointed out that it did not result in loss to the Mutt. In fact, there is no finding to that effect. So far as ground No.7 is concerned, namely, sale of wet lands in Padur village, the same was done only for a proper price and the only complaint is that the sale was effected without obtaining sanction under Section 34 of the Act. Ground No.9 refers that a sum of Rs.1,200/- has not been accounted for. In fact, the perusal of the village account would show that it has been duly accounted for. It is not as if there was any misapplication or misappropriation of the funds. So far as ground No.10 is concerned, the defendant failed to advert that the agreement had been concluded long before the notification. The sale deeds were executed only pursuant to such agreement, but of course, after the notification. Here again, the Commissioner has not recorded a finding that the sales were detrimental to the interests of the Mutt. Thus, the plaintiff would submit that none of the charges levelled against him would justify the defendant for framing of a scheme. So far as the sale of the lands are concerned, the plaintiff was under the impression that the exemption, which was granted from time immemorial and conferred under the Act of 1927, was continuing and so he did not apply for sanction. In fact, Section 34 of the Act does not lay down that it is for the Madathipathi or Trustee to apply for sanction and that being so, it is for the purchaser to protect his interest by applying for necessary sanction. Even when such permission is sought for, the Department takes its own time which runs to several years. Hence, action had to be taken whenever a good offer is received and none of these transactions have been made against the interests of the Mutt or the Mutt had lost any property or money under these transactions. While preserving the properties which are yielding good income, such properties, which are not yielding any income or yielding low income had to be sold for a good price and the monies were invested in either profitable investment or property. To say that permission must be obtained even to lend monies to temple servants will work injustice to those sincere staff, since the temple servants are poorly paid and in urgent necessities they could not go to any other person excepting the head of the Mutt for immediate relief. If again sanction is to be obtained for lending monies to the servants of the Mutt, it will not be available to the persons in distress and considering the position of the Mutt, the plaintiff had to relieve the temporary financial difficulties of the temple servants. The plaintiff pleaded in the plaint that none of the charges levelled against him have been proved and that there has been certainly no mismanagement of the properties of the Mutt and there are absolutely no evidence, whatsoever, to justify the Commissioner's decision that a scheme should be framed. The plaintiff sought for a decree cancelling the order of the defendant dated 11.3.1976 in O.A.No.3 of 1973.
(3.) The defendant filed a written statement denying various claims made by the plaintiff. According to the defendant, the suit is premature and that the plaintiff has no cause of action to maintain the present claim. The defendant would plead that the exemption which was originally granted to the plaintiff was withdrawn in the year 1947. Questioning the same, the plaintiff filed a suit in C.S.No.681 of 1948 which was partly decreed and withdrawal of exemption was upheld. Questioning the correctness of the same, the plaintiff and the defendant filed appeals in O.S.A. Nos.114 of 1953 and 142 of 1953. Those appeals were compromised between the parties. The said compromise only related to levy and demand of contribution and audit fee. The said compromise was however silent as to the exercise of other powers under the Act. This could only mean that the jurisdiction and power of the Government and the Department in other respects are fully admitted by the plaintiff herein. According to the defendant, it received complaints regarding mismanagement by the Madathipathi that he sold immovable properties belonging to the Mutt resulting in heavy loss to the institution. Such sales were effected without obtaining prior sanction as contemplated under Section 34 of the Act. The Commissioner desired framing of a scheme under Section 65 of the Act to ensure proper and effective management of the Mutt's properties and in the notice issued to the plaintiff in O.A.No.3 of 1973, a draft scheme was proposed to be framed. The said notice gave complete details and the grounds on which a scheme was found necessary. For that purpose, an enquiry was posted to 21.5.1976. In the mean time, the plaintiff hurriedly rushed to the Court and filed the above suit. No suit would lie under Section 70(1) of the Act 22 of 1959 against the proposed draft scheme unless and until the Commissioner passed a final order after considering the objection, if any, filed by the aggrieved party. According to the defendant, the suit is premature. That apart, the suit itself ought to have been filed in the Court having jurisdiction in Chengleput or North Arcot District as per the provisions of the Act and that being so, the suit is incompetent. The Commissioner, only after examining the entire matter and only on the basis of the evidence available, came to the conclusion that a scheme should be framed and for which purpose, before passing an order desired to know the suggestion of the Mutt as well as other persons interested. The fact that a draft scheme was framed by the Commissioner when the exemption of the Mutt from the provisions of the Act continued and even during the pendency of the suit as well as Original Side Appeal was denied. The proceedings for framing of the scheme are legal and valid and were initiated strictly adhering to law and the same are warranted on the facts and circumstances and no principle of natural justice is violated. In fact, the charges levelled against the plaintiff are borne out by records and on the basis of the materials, an adverse inference can be drawn. The plaintiff was also given adequate opportunity at the enquiry and he could have cross-examined the witnesses. Exhibits were marked only in the presence of the plaintiff's agent and counsel. If a trustee violates any statutory provision, it is open to the authority functioning under the statute to initiate such action against the delinquent trustee as is called for. As the violation has been persistent in the case of the plaintiff, the Department initiated the present proceedings to frame a scheme. The opinion of the revenue officials cannot be termed as private opinion and the plaintiff could have adduced evidence disproving the same. In some instances, the sales were effected to some relatives of the plaintiff and the same have not been denied. The examination of the materials reveals that the action of the plaintiff is high handed and in flagrant violation of the statutory provisions. The charge is that instead of cash consideration, promissory notes have been taken. The plaintiff thus admits the charge. This conduct of the plaintiff is highly irregular and objectionable. The contention that it was only for the purchaser to obtain the sanction under Section 34 cannot be sustained. The plaintiff himself has applied for sanction under Section 34 in the case of other Mutt properties. Even assuming there used to be some delay in granting sanction, that cannot be a ground for the plaintiff to act on his own and effect sales of the Mutt properties without obtaining necessary sanction. As a trustee, the Madathipathi is bound to act according to law.