R. VENKATARAMANI Vs. THE MADRAS HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions are filed by one Venkataramani claiming to be the hereditary trustee of three temples, namely, Sri Krishnaswami, Kari Varadarajaswami and Prasanna Venkateswaraswami, situate in the village of West Komaralingam, Udumalpet taluk, to quash the scheme framed in respect of the management of these temples in O. A. No. 98 of 1955 by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board and to prohibit the Commissioner of the Board from enforcing the said scheme. Before I dispose of these writ petitions it is necessary for me to state briefly the facts that led to the filing of these writ petitions. The petitioner is the son of one K.S. Ramaswami Aiyangar, who claimed to be the hereditary trustee of the above said temples. He alleges that the temple was founded and established by his ancestors 155 years ago. A grant in respect of the temple was made by the Ruler of Mysore and with regard to the Kari Varadarajaswami temple the grant was made by the Palayakars of Madurai. The petitioner's ancestors have been in possession and enjoyment of the properties attached to the temples. A patta for the properties was issued in the name of his great grandfather, Narayana Aiyangar, after him to his son and grandson, the grandfather of the petitioner who died in 1951 and thereafter the hereditary trusteeship descended to the petitioner's father and he continued to be the trustee till he was removed by the Endowments Board for mismanagement of the temples. Owing to the mismanagement of the temples scheme proceedings were started under S. 58 of Madras Act XIX of 1961 in O. A. No. 98 of 1955 and notice was given to the petitioner's father on 26th March 1955. He filed his objections on 20th September 1955 and after an enquiry the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board, Coimbatore, framed a scheme by his order dated 2nd December 1955. Simultaneously charges were framed against the petitioner's father under S. 45 of the Act and after following the procedure prescribed by the Act, the Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 18th December 1955 removed him from the office of trustee of the temples.

(2.) Then the petitioner's father started a series of proceedings only with the intention of preventing the implementation of the scheme framed by the Board and depriving him of the possession of the properties belonging to the temple. Ho filed O. S. No. 6 of 1956 on the file of the Sub Court, Coimbatore, for a declaration that the properties of the temple are his absolute properties only burdened with service or in the alternative to declare that he is the hereditary archaka of the temple entitled to the management of the temples and possession of the properties. In that suit one of the important issues framed was "Whether the plaintiff is a hereditary Archaka trustee of the temple - The learned trial Judge gave a finding to the following effect:

(3.) Evidently, the reference is to the Board's order dated 7th November, 1941, wherein it was observed: