S SADAGOPA RAMANUJAM Vs. S R RENGASAMY IYENGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 are the sole hereditary trustees of the temple and the plaintiff is a joint hereditary trustee, along with defendants 1 and 2. One Chinna Ramanuja Iyengar, who was a common ancestor of the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 was the sole hereditary trustee of the said temple throughout his life. Before him, his ancestore were the hereditary trustee. Chinna Ramanuja Iyengar owned considerable lands in many villages and major portion of the lands belonging to the temples were endowed by Chinna Ramanuja Iyengar and his forefathers. Chinna ramanuja Iyengar died in 1867, and left him surviving his five sons. Besides the hereditary trusteeship of the three suit temples, the family owned a big temple in Katteri and was performing a large number of Charities, Mandahappadis etc. , in several places. Several valuable properties were endowed for the said purpose and Chinna Ramanuja Iyengar was managing and administering all these as hereditary trustee. After his death, disputes arose between his sons regarding the division of the family properties and disqualification of the 5th son iyyasami Iyengar and division and devolution of the various trusteeship and the performance of the trusts and management of the trust properties. All these disputes were referred to sole arbitration of one Vakil C. Ramaswami Iyer of mannargudi, who made and passed an award dated 20. 9. 1985 and the same was marked as Exhibit A-1 in the suit on the side of the plaintiff. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the said award was accepted by all the parties and was acted upon eversince the date of the award. Under the terms of the said award some properties were allotted to the share of Iyyasami Iyengar, inspite of his disqualification and that bulk of the properties were allotted to his other four brothers. Hereditary trusteeship of the three temples was as per para 21 of the Award vested in one son and two grandsons of Chinna Ramanuja iyengar and their branches i. e. , Srinivasa Iyengar, the second son, and his descendants who came to be designated as'b'branch, they being entitled to half share in the management. Likewise, Rajagopala Iyengar and ramanuja Iyengar sons of the 4th son Venkatachariar came to be designated as'b' branch, they have been entitled to other half share in the management of hereditary trusteeship. It is also the specific case of the plaintiff that the devolution of the hereditary trusteeship in accordance with the provision was also accepted and acted upon by al l the parties and never questioned and therefore the same is perfectly legal, valid and binding on all the parties. It is also the specific case of the plaintiff that all the shares have effected a partition of the family properties, by way of accepting and implementing the award by partition arrangement dated 3. 6. 1903, marked as Exhibit A-2 on the side of the plaintiff expressly agreeing and stipulating there-in that the trusteeship vested in each of them should not be alienated. THEy have again agreed and provided that the share of the hereditary trustees vested in their branches should be enjoyed by each having a half share therein and that the temples should be administered properly. THE first defendant is the sole representative of'b'branch entitled to half share of the hereditary trusteeship. THE plaintiff being the only son of Chinna Ramanuja Iyengar and the second son being the only son of Rajagopal entitled to'd' branch are each entitled to one half share. As to the other half share of the hereditary trusteeship, it is stated that the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 are the joint hereditary trustees. However, no arrangement has been arrived at in regard to the ir turn of management and administration of the temples. THE plaintiff states that his father Ramanuja Iyengar has sold his hereditary trusteeship to one Ethirajammal, paternal grandmother of first defendant by sale deed dated 24. 11. 1924 together with his other private properties. According to family custom, trusteeship and hereditary trusteeship cannot be sold and the trustees cannot sell the same. It is also contended that the sale of the trusteeship to Ethirajammal is also contrary to the partitions by way of family arrangement dated 3. 6. 1903 and 13. 9. 1913. However, the plaintiff has not filed the sale deed dated 24. 11. 1924 According to the plaintiff his father died on 10. 10. 1969 and he being the only son is entitled to succeed and has succeeded to all rights of joint hereditary trusteeship. Several demands made by the plaintiff on the first defendant, who is in exclusive possession of the hereditary trusteeship to recognise the joint rights of plaintiff with a view to ensure the plaintiffs effective and active participation in all the rights, functions and duties of the office and administration and management of the properties attached to the temple was not acceded to, by the first defendant. THE denial on the part of the first defendant in refusing to acceed to the said demand of the plaintiffs right is against law and untenable. THE plaintiff has also impleaded the second defendant, who is also a joint hereditary trustee being the son of the Rajagopal Iyengar of the'd'branch. THE third defendant. Deputy Commissioner, H. R. & C. E. Thanjavur was also impleaded as a party defendant for proper and final adjudication of the matter in question. According to the plaintiff, the suit is not hit by the provisions or Section 63 (b) or section 108 or any other provisions of Act 22 of 1959. THEre is no dispute at all about the trusteeship for the religious institution and in fact the proceedings in OA. No. 18 of 1968 have been taken by the department only on the hereditary trusteeship. THE only dispute trusteeship. THE only dispute is purely a private dispute between the plaintiff and the first defendant and therefore the plaintiff has instituted the suit in the lower court, which alone has jurisdiction to decide the matter.

(2.) THE suit was resisted by the first defendant. He has filed a written statement. It is partinent to point out that the first defendant has not specifically denied as incorrect some of the allegations made in paras 2 to 5 of the plaint. THE first defendant has simply stated in the written statement that the allegations in the plaint paras 2 to 5 are not correct and false and are not admitted. Thus, the specific allegations made by the plaintiff in paras 2 to 5 of the plaint remain unchallenged since it has not been specifically denied. Para 2 of the plaint mentions about the vast extent of the landed properties owned by Ramanuja Iyengar who was the ancestor of the plaintiff and the denfendants 1 and 2 who was the sole hereditary trustee of the said temple throughout his life time. Para 3 of the plaint refers to the dispute and difference of opinion between the sons of the trustees and the devolution of the family properties by reference to Arbitration and the award passed by the Arbitrator on 20. 11. 1895 which was accepted by all the parties and has been acted upon evensince the date of the award. Para 4 of the plaint refers to the award dated 20. 11. 1895 and allotment of some properties to the share of Iyyasamy Iyengar. Inspite of his disqualification, and the allotment of bulk of the properties to the other sharers. It also refers to para 21 of the award and the allotment of shares to each of the branch and the devolution of the hereditary trusteeship in accordance with the provisions made in para 21 of the award, which was accepted and acted upon by all the parties and never questioned by any one. Para 5 of the plaint refers to acceptance and implementation of the award by all the sharers and partition of family properties mentioned in family partition dated 3. 6. 1903 expressly agreeing and stipulating that the trusteeship in each one of them should not be alienated. As mentioned above, the first defendant who was also a trustee has not specifically denied the averments. THE written statement only refers to customs set up in para 7 of the plaint and a bald denial that the document is not valid and binding on the plaintiff and second defendant. It is stated that the plaintiff is not entitled to succeed to all rights of joint hereditary trustee and therefore he has no right to be in joint possession. Para 5 of the written statement refers to some proceedings in O. A. No. 18 of 1968 and pendency of the same before the Deputy commissioner H. R. & C. E. Thanjavur. According to the defendant, the period of limitation has been calculated by the plaintiff and the provision of the limitation Act relied on by the plaintiff is incorrect. Act 107 of limitation act alone will apply the suit claim is clearly barred by limitation. THE right if any, had been lost by adverse possession and the suit is liable to be dismissed on that score.

(3.) MR. G. Subramaniam, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the lower court has not considered the evidence in a proper perspective as provided under Order 17 Rule 2 and 3 of C. P. C. and in the absence of any discussion by the court below on the dispute in question, the judgment cannot be allowed to stand and therefore the same has to be set aside and remitted back to the lower Court for a fresh finding. He also contended that the standard of proof required in exparte case has not been satisfied in the instant case.