KALYANARAGHAVAN Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Rajabathar Mudaliar was previously the hereditary trustee of Sri agastheeswarar and Sri prasarnnavenkatesaperumal temples. His father had been the hereditary trustee before him. On certain charges framed against him, this rajabathar Mudaliar was dismissed. After his dismissal his wife Valli Animal sought to be appointed as the hereditary trustee as the next in line of succession, and as her claims were not recognised, she moved this Court in Writ Petition No. ' 855 of 1958. This Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the commissioner to recognise Valli Animal as the trustee in place of her husband Rajabathar. This Valli ammal assumed office on 13-12-1960. The commissioner thereafter purported to appoint an executive officer. One was so appointed on 15-'3 1961. The appointment of the executive officer was questioned by a writ petition before this court. But, finally, it appears that the proceeding for the appointment of an executive officer was dropped. In April 1961, a series of charges were trained against Valli Annual herself notwithstanding that she had hardly been in Office as hereditary trustee for four months. She was also placed under suspension and finally by order of the commissioner dated 19-4-62 she was dismissed from office. Even after her dismissal, no. steps were taken by the: commissioner for appointing a person next in line to succeed to the office of hereditary trustee. When the matter was accordingly brought before this Court in writ petition No. 668 of 1862, this Court directed that the commissioner should give effect to section 54 (1) and consistent with its terms to take steps for proper administration of the institution.

(2.) IT is stated that the present petitioner Kalyanaraghavan, the minor son of rajabathar, is the next person entitled to succeed to the office of hereditary trustee. After the dismissal of Valli Animal this minor through his father and natural guardian sought to get himself appointed. The Deputy Commissioner however rejected the petition of the minor petitioner and proceeded to appoint a fit person to discharge the functions of a trustee Under Section 54 (3) of the Act. It is this order of the Deputy Commissioner that is impugned in this present proceeding and it is contended that the appointment of a person is not in conformity with the provisions of the Act as well as with the directions that were given by this Court in an earlier writ petition.

(3.) ON behalf of the Deputy Commissioner, the earlier proceedings that have been set out, are admitted. It is stated in the counter affidavit that one Jayalakshmi animal has filed a petition before the commissioner for recognition of her claims to the hereditary trusteeship of the suit temples, and that one Krishnamurthy has also filed a petition as the maternal uncle of the minor petitioner for being appointed as the fit person. It is stated that the Deputy Commissioner on enquiring into the petition of the minor petitioner found that it was not feasible to appoint dismissed trustees as guardians of the minor. It is also slated that since there is a dispute regarding the hereditary trusteeship of the temples, the Deputy commissioner thought it fit to appoint a fit person. It is claimed that the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Commissioner and that such appeal is pending. The contention of the respondent Deputy Commissioner is that it is not safe to entrust the management of the temples in the hands of the father of the minor, who is a dismissed trustee. Reliance is placed upon the fact that there is some dispute regarding succession to the office in supporting the order of the Deputy commissioner appointing a fit person.