VAIDVANATHA GURUKKAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF THE HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF is the appellant.

(2.) AT the time of Inam Settlement, grant of 20 acres and 80 cents in Marudur village in the name of Sri Visveswara Vinayagar temple was confirmed by the Inam Commission and patta was granted to the Archaka. The archaka was recognised as Dharmakartha. The lands were in the possession of the archaka. Archaka-cum-trusteeship of the temple has been hereditarily remaining with the plaintiffs family for generations. Kulandaian was Archaka trustee when the grant was confirmed. On his death, Kandasami his second son became the archaka trustee since Subramanian his brother pre-deceased him. Kandasami was managing the temple and was in possession and enjoyment of the lands. He died as a bachelor. His elder brother's son Kulandaisami died issueless. Kulandaisami's sister is Thayammal whose son-in-law is one Nallasami. The plaintiff is Nallasami's son. The plaintiff was helping kulandaisami'in his duties as Archaka trustee. Kulandaisami had executed a Will on 23. 2. 1948 bequeathing his rights in the temple and rights in another temple in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has thus become the archaka trustee of the suit temple. He has been performing and maintaining the temple lands and cultivating them. He has been contributing to the Department who has recognised them as the trustee. While so, the Assistant Commissioner, hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, called for applications for appointment of non-hereditary trustee. It was objected to by the plaintiff. The deputy Commissioner dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff contending that the plaintiff cannot claim trusteeship as the heirs of Kulandaisami. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff to the Commissioner was also dismissed. The plaintiff has therefore filed the suit. During the pendency of the suit, defendants 3 to 5 were appointed as trustees in the place of the second defendant who was appointed by the Assistant Commissioner as a non-hereditary trustee. The plaintiff has therefore come forward with this suit for declaration with a prayer for setting aside the order of the Commissioner.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff would argue that the plaintiff and his predecessors were acting as poojari-cum-trustee of the suit temple Which owns 20 acres and odd and there is no separate trustee for the suit temple which is a small temple in a village and as the plaintiff belongs to the family of poojari-cum-trustees who have been not only performing the pooja in the suit temple but also maintaining the property belonging to the temple and was in enjoyment of the same, the plaintiff is entitled to be appointed as hereditary trustee and the order passed by the Commissioner therefore is liable to be set aside. According to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, the plaintiff who claims as a hereditary trustee has not satisfied the requirement of Sec. 6 (11) of the Hindu religious and Charitable Endowments Act and therefore the order passed by the commissioner is well-founded and dismissed of the suit by the trial court is also correct. According to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, there is no evidence for unbroken line of succession of poojariship and the plaintiff cannot claim as the hereditary trustee of the suit temple. THE learned counsel appearing for the respondent wants to establish that the succession to the office of hereditary trustee does not devolve on the appellant by hereditary right since his father Nallasami was not performing pooja. It is not in dispute that at the time of Inam Settlement, the grant of 20 acres and odd in favour of the temple by name Sri Visveswara Vinayagar temple has been confirmed by the Inam Commission and patta was also granted in favour of Archaka trustee viz. , Kulandaisami Gurukkal. Kulandaisami Gurukkal had two sons Subramanian and Kandasami. Subsequent to the death of Kulandaisami gurukkal, his younger son Kandasami Gurukkal was acting as poojari-cum-trustee. On his death, his elder brother's son Kulandaisami was doing pooja and looking after the affairs of the temple. THErefore, the poojari-cum-trusteeship has remained in the family of the original poojari-cum- trustee Kulandaisami gurukkal cannot be disputed.